View Full Version : Sony A9 Master Series KE48A9 OLED winging its way to Marco Towers!
So... Upon switching on the TV on Sunday morning, I was met with no picture and a flashing red light under the Sony badge, and subsequently despite trying various advised 'online fixes', to no avail, it became apparent that it was fucked!:D
Or to be more precise, the screen was gone and it needed a new panel. Sadly TVs just don't last like they used to. In the old days, it wasn't uncommon for some CRTs to last 30-odd years! With today's TVs, there's no chance of that. You're lucky if you get 5 or 6 years from them. Turns out we got 5 (and a bit) from ours.
Annoying too, we bought it on 03/09/16, with a 5-year guarantee, and it popped on 19/9/21 - a mere 16 days after the warranty expired!:doh:
However, being a hater of just chucking things away (and the rather odious 'disposable society' we live in today), I still enquired about having it fixed, but was advised that it would be around £500 for a new screen, so as the TV only cost £800 new, it simply wasn't worth it, and of course, looking at things positively, it was an opportunity to upgrade!:)
So, upgrade we have to this (purchased from John Lewis with a free 5-year guarantee): https://www.johnlewis.com/sony-bravia-ke48a9-2020-oled-hdr-4k-ultra-hd-smart-android-tv-48-inch-with-freeview-hd-youview-dolby-atmos-acoustic-surface-audio-black/p5497891?sku=239952954&s_ppc=2dx92700062565398716&tmad=c&tmcampid=2&gclid=CjwKCAjw4qCKBhAVEiwAkTYsPGZrro8nHRiyO5zdAl0w KQ2jE7VfY80daAwDnw1luHpKOd-12Ve1uBoCr_QQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Superb review here: https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/sony-kd-48a9-48-inch-oled-tv
It's last year's model, but still amply up-to-date, and which was originally £1800, so a good buy I thought, especially as with this particular model, performance wise, Sony really hit the highs!
In any case, I've been wanting an OLED for some time, but it's only recently that manufacturers started making them in smaller screens than 55". That's just too big for our lounge and would dominate the room, which may be fine for those who consider what's ostensibly (with no image present) an ugly black piece of plastic stuck on their wall, or on top of their cabinet, as a 'centrepiece', or something to justifiably 'show off', but count us out.
Therefore, with this model being a relatively 'dinky' 48", it's perfect for our needs and still bigger than the 43" TV it replaced! Anyway, it's being delivered on Saturday, and I can't wait to see the results with 4K HDR Blu-Rays, on our Panasonic DP-UBB20 player, plus all UHD material broadcast on Netflix, Sky or Virgin movies...:carrot:
Full review to follow!:cool:
Marco.
should be nice.. all 3 of my tvs are still(touch wood) working as well as when bought. not sure how old they are but all over 10 yrs. i must have been lucky and they all on a lot too.
the 4k youve now got will be a bonus
Cheers, mate. Yeah it should defo be nice, and yes you've been lucky so far. Our last TV though was also 4K, but not an OLED:)
Marco.
A "dinky 48" "? Our LG TV in London is 43", and our Sony TV in Essex is only 37"! For general viewing I find 37" to be more than sufficient (compared to my old 18" CRT), whereas the larger screen is preferred when watching films.
rmcin626
22-09-2021, 17:25
So... Upon switching on the TV on Sunday morning, I was met with no picture and a flashing red light under the Sony badge, and subsequently despite trying various 'fixes', to no avail, it became apparent that it was fucked!:D
Or to be more precise, the screen was gone and it needed a new panel. Sadly TVs just don't last like they used to. In the old days, it wasn't uncommon for some CRTs to last 30-odd years! With today's TVs, there's no chance of that. You're lucky if you get 5 or 6 years from them. Turns out we got 5 (and a bit) from ours.
Annoying too, we bought it on 03/09/16, with a 5-year guarantee, and it popped on 19/9/21 - a mere 16 days after the warranty expired!:doh:
However, being a hater of just chucking things away (and the rather odious 'disposable society' we live in today), I still enquired about having it fixed, but was advised that it would be around £500 for a new screen, so as the TV only cost £800 new, it simply wasn't worth it, and of course, looking at things positively, it was an opportunity to upgrade!:)
So, upgrade we have to this (purchased from John Lewis with a free 5-year guarantee): https://www.johnlewis.com/sony-bravia-ke48a9-2020-oled-hdr-4k-ultra-hd-smart-android-tv-48-inch-with-freeview-hd-youview-dolby-atmos-acoustic-surface-audio-black/p5497891?sku=239952954&s_ppc=2dx92700062565398716&tmad=c&tmcampid=2&gclid=CjwKCAjw4qCKBhAVEiwAkTYsPGZrro8nHRiyO5zdAl0w KQ2jE7VfY80daAwDnw1luHpKOd-12Ve1uBoCr_QQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Superb review here: https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/sony-kd-48a9-48-inch-oled-tv
It's last year's model, but still amply up-to-date, and which was originally £1800, so a good buy I thought, especially as with this particular model, performance wise, Sony really hit the highs!
In any case, I've been wanting an OLED for some time, but it's only recently that manufacturers started making them in smaller screens than 55". That's just too big for our lounge and would dominate the room, which may be fine for those who consider what's ostensibly (with no image present) an ugly black piece of plastic stuck on their wall, or on top of their cabinet, as a 'centrepiece', or something to justifiably 'show off', but count us out.
Therefore, with this model being a relatively 'dinky' 48", it's perfect for our needs and still bigger than the 43" TV it replaced! Anyway, it's being delivered on Saturday, and I can't wait to see the results with 4K HDR Blu-Rays, on our Panasonic DP-UBB20 player, plus all UHD material broadcast on Netflix, Sky or Virgin movies...:carrot:
Full review to follow!:cool:
Marco.
Very nice , although a bit on the “dinky” size for me, enjoy it
A "dinky 48" "? Our LG TV in London is 43", and our Sony TV in Essex is only 37"! For general viewing I find 37" to be more than sufficient (compared to my old 18" CRT), whereas the larger screen is preferred when watching films.
Yup, but with the latter, the larger the better, if you want films to 'feel' convincing! However, as I've said, within reason. No way would a 55" TV (or bigger) look right in our old lodge house, surrounded by antiques of various description, not just us!:D
...especially as, due to our living arrangements, it has to go on the wall in a corner.
Marco.
Very nice , although a bit on the “dinky” size for me, enjoy it
Lol, cheers. If we lived in a modern house with a long flat wall and a bigg-ish lounge, things might be different, but in our relatively small lounge, which is very traditionally decorated, a huge screen would just look hideous and stand out like a sore thumb!
Marco.
rmcin626
22-09-2021, 17:38
Lol, cheers. If we lived in a modern house with a long flat wall and a bigg-ish lounge, things might be different, but in our relatively small lounge, which is very traditionally decorated, a huge screen would look hideous and stand out like a sore thumb!
Marco.
Too be honest ours is probably too big , 65 inch but when we bought it about a year ago just before the second lockdown, its been great especially for my wee grandson who just loves it.
mine is 32" just a little thing alas :D tbh it has a fairly big bezel so a bigger screen now might not be much bigger overall
Too be honest ours is probably too big , 65 inch but when we bought it about a year ago just before the second lockdown, its been great especially for my wee grandson who just loves it.
Lol, no worries... However, to show you what I mean (an old pic, as the speakers have changed since then, but you get the idea):
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/924/MLxf76.jpg
As you can see, there's a finite amount of space for the TV to go, between our Welsh dresser and the window. It's just not the type of room for a huge 'tele'.
Marco.
probably get a 55 in there, but 48 will be better.
Yeah, at push, but princess doesn't WANT it all crowded in like that, who by the way says that she loves your 'bezel' just as it is!:D
Marco.
You can see how wide it is. Its got a superb pic, an LG. Must be about 12yrs old maybe more. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210922/c97ab8a8235ea5754fa4d51578b7ed13.jpg
It's probably on 10 hrs a day too. Surprised the bulb hasn't given in
Yeah, they were probably built better then. No reply to the princess then?:eyebrows:
Marco.
Yeah, they were probably built better then. No reply to the princess then?:eyebrows:
Marco.
is that my high bezel or my low bezel?:ner:
Pigmy Pony
22-09-2021, 18:22
Yup, but with the latter, the larger the better, if you want films to 'feel' convincing! However, as I've said, within reason. No way would a 55" TV (or bigger) look right in our old lodge house, surrounded by antiques of various description, not just us!:D
...especially as, due to our living arrangements, it has to go on the wall in a corner.
Marco.
Patrick Swayze said nobody puts Sony in a corner, but he probably has a bigger lounge.
We gave our then 9 year old Panasonic plasma to a friend 2 years ago, and it's still going strong. :) Luck of the draw really.
is that my high bezel or my low bezel?:ner:
Hahaha, she's giggling... The 'widescreen' one, befitting your status as her chunky unky!:D
She says Gilbert thinks you're funny too, lol.
Marco.
Patrick Swayze said nobody puts Sony in a corner, but he probably has a bigger lounge.
:lolsign:
Marco.
Hahaha, she's giggling... The 'widescreen' one, befitting your status as her chunky unky!:D
She says Gilbert thinks you're funny too, lol.
Marco.
ah, my mid driff:eyebrows: yes its deffo super widescreen:doh:
Yes, but it's a nice 'pillow' for her to rest her tootsies on for a rub!:D:eyebrows:
Marco.
As you mentioned the 55", it was very tempting, and not much more dosh either: https://www.johnlewis.com/sony-bravia-xr-xr55a80j-2021-oled-hdr-4k-ultra-hd-smart-google-tv-55-inch-with-freeview-hd-freesat-hd-dolby-atmos-acoustic-surface-audio-black/p5561898?sku=239900853&s_ppc=2dx92700064025601983&tmad=c&tmcampid=2&gclid=CjwKCAjw4qCKBhAVEiwAkTYsPDM7vLEG9NcEFAF5VnTv lzdrqW6NtOtdXZ3DUJoCFjCaUjfp5b4p1RoCFxUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
...but it would've been too 'tight' in that space.
However, for anyone on the lookout for a quality (but affordable) 55" OLED, it doesn't get much better, unless you like the more 'impressive' (IMO, read as artificially enhanced) colour palette of pretty much everything else, other than a Sony.
It's entirely subjective, of course, but I find results of the colour processing Sony use more natural/lifelike, which is why I've always stuck with them since the early days of Trinitron:)
Marco.
Yup, but with the latter, the larger the better, if you want films to 'feel' convincing! However, as I've said, within reason. No way would a 55" TV (or bigger) look right in our old lodge house, surrounded by antiques of various description, not just us!:D
...especially as, due to our living arrangements, it has to go on the wall in a corner.
Marco.
No, I disagree. For me it is a matter of angle of view. Even at the cinema I prefer to sit as far away from the screen as possible for comfortable viewing.
Whilst we all have peripheral vision over an angle of nearly 180 degrees, we tend to concentrate on images that lay within about a 45 degree angle of view. Thus I don't feel the need or the desire for a large (wide) screen.
Apropos the look of a wide screen TV when not in use, well I have always had my TV upstairs and not in my living and/or listening room, so that doesn't worry me.
However, for anyone on the lookout for a quality 55" OLED, it doesn't get much better, unless you like the more 'impressive' (IMO, read as artificially enhanced) colour palette of pretty much everything else, other than a Sony.
It's entirely subjective, of course, but I find results of the colour processing Sony use more natural/lifelike, which is why I've always stuck with them, since the early days of Trinitron:)
Marco.
Again I'm inclined to disagree. Whilst I am largely loyal to Sony TVs, the colour balance of our LG TV is definitely better than that of the Sony.
No, I disagree. For me it is a matter of angle of view. Even at the cinema I prefer to sit as far away from the screen as possible for comfortable viewing.
Whilst we all have peripheral vision over an angle of nearly 180 degrees, we tend to concentrate on images that lay within about a 45 degree angle of view. Thus I don't feel the need or the desire for a large (wide) screen.
Lol, fair enough, but in our case, as the TV acts as part of a home-cinema system (thereby we're actively seeking to create a cinematic-type experience at home, within due constraints, and therefore with the use of a dedicated AV amp, centre speaker, twin subs and surround speakers), then it follows that you'd want as big a screen as possible!:)
Great pleasure is derived from immersing oneself in as convincing a cinematic experience at home as possible, old chap.
In that respect, if I lived in, say a modern flat, with a large lounge that had a long wall down one side, and where a huge plastic screen didn't look rather vulgar, I'd have the *biggest* TV possible, or more likely, as big a screen as possible, in conjunction with a top-notch 4K projector, which would combine to make the image on *any* TV screen look like a fuzzy mush in comparison.
In fact, if I had the choice of owning, say, a luxury swimming pool or a 'real' indoor cinema, with seats and all, including the appropriate sized screen and a full Dolby Atmos set-up, it'd be the latter every time!!:D
Marco.
Again I'm inclined to disagree. Whilst I am largely loyal to Sony TVs, the colour balance of our LG TV is definitely better than that of the Sony.
That's fine. I did say it was subjective, and I TOTALLY disagree!:ner:;)
Have you had either professionally set up and calibrated by an engineer? If not, and you're basing your opinion solely on your own basic setting up of colours and contrast, black/white levels, etc, or worse formed that conclusion in a showroom, then I'm sorry, you're not really in a position to critically assess or judge the difference.
Marco.
You can see how good the Sony is here, by reading the spec, especially the quality of the processor used: https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/televisions/a9-series
And if it were hi-fi equipment being reviewed, I wouldn't pay much attention to the contents of What Hi-Fi?, but they know their TVs. Therefore, I have no reason to dispute their conclusion, after having reviewed the Sony in question:
"Sony has taken LG’s panel and, with its own picture processing and audio wizardry, raised the benchmark previously (and briefly) held by LG’s own OLED48CX" .
Marco.
Should be a great telly. I’ve mainly gone Samsung now, although we have a Sony in the kitchen, 32” - was just about the only one I could find that was 1080P in that size. Rather embarrassingly we have 8 TVs in the house*, including an ancient LG 32” in our bedroom which must be 18 years old and still going strong. It too is 1080P and coupled with a Sky Q Mini, still has a great picture.
* so I can always find somewhere to watch Bargain Hunt... :lol:
Lol - so YOU are the other BH fan, then?:D Del and I watch it regularly, along with a host of other antiques-related shows.
Nothing wrong with Samsung. It's just that I can tell the difference between the colour balance on one, or an LG, very easily. For me, the latter make colours 'pop' more, which produces 'exciting looking' visuals, great with films, but that ultimately I find a little 'forced', and therefore artificial and unnatural.
Sony TVs, on the other hand, tend not to make colours 'pop' to the same degree, which some find a little bland, especially when they've been used to watching stuff on a Samsung or LG. Their screens are also not as brightly lit, but for me the recipe that they use for colour processing is ultimately more successful at reproducing a lifelike image, which for me is what it's all about.
The difference between them is rather like the reaction of someone who's not used to having sugar in their coffee or tea, suddenly being given a cup with two spoons of sugar in - or vice versa... I mean, would I want to 'boost' the tonal balance of my audio system with the use of a graphic equaliser? No, and neither would I (albeit it indirectly) seek to do the same with the colour balance on my TV.
It's about achieving *my* notion of accuracy/REALISM, and I'm as fussy about optimising the picture quality on my TV, as I am about optimising the sound quality of my hi-fi system!
In any case though, as with everything else, ultimately it's all down to personal taste:)
Marco.
You have to be careful with any TV “out of the box” as the settings are usually set to look “impressive” in the shop, but ultimately unrealistic when you get it home. A bit of fiddling will be in order when you get it!
Oh absolutely, mate. There'll be a lot of default settings getting binned! I did the same with my last Sony. Whenever I buy a new TV, I search for videos on YouTube, produced by engineers or other more knowledgeable people than I, on how to optimise the picture on the model of TV I've bought.
Therefore, I'll be watching this video on Saturday, after the delivery chaps have set up the TV for its basic functions, and following the advice given:
https://youtu.be/wjxTIYDY6sI
Yes I know it's still ultimately down to your individual preference what's best.
However, try as I might, I'm never able to disagree with the recommended advanced settings suggested by these dudes who know what they're doing. I used the same guy for setting up my last Sony, and the end result and difference between the settings he recommended, and the factory ones, was massive!:)
Therefore, I'd strongly recommend others to do the same with their TVs. Just type into YT, 'How to optimise the picture on a <insert model of your TV>'
What I've always wanted to do though, but so far baulked at the cost, is avail of the services of a professional calibration engineer, such as this: https://www.isfcalibration.org/?utm_source=googleads&vt_keyword=tv%20calibration%20service
Prices start at £300, but I've seen the results when a mate of mine had it done with his OLED TV, and the difference, even between a well set-up one (such as the above) and a professionally calibrated version, is literally NIGHT and DAY! So I may ask Del to treat me for Xmas... I think with this particular TV it would be worth it.
You should read the section entitled 'Why Do I Need to Calibrate My TV?' It makes perfect sense! It's also why, until you've had it done and therefore *know* how good your TV is, by releasing its latent potential, you can't definitively say what's 'best' for you between, say, a Sony and an LG. Nota bene, Bazza!;)
Marco.
65 inch Sony all the way for me. Has been away for a warranty repair and still going strong after 6 years. Just enjoying a watch review on YouTube.
Other half’s still using my old 55” Samsung, about 10 years old.
Enjoy your new gogglebox Marco.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210922/80b4e8587118a38e989e0d36297720bc.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol - it would be watches, eh!:D
Anyway, cheers, mate. Should be good:cool:
Marco.
Lol - it would be watches, eh!:D
Anyway, cheers, mate. Should be good:cool:
Marco.
Did you notice I now have an 'Old Charm' coffee table? Bought locally dirt cheap and very appropriate for a late 40's built council 'ouse :D
Ali Tait
23-09-2021, 06:54
Did similar a few years ago, bought a 55” Bravia previous years’ model from Argos. Still going strong and great picture once I’d set it up with a file I got from a Sony forum.
bought a 50'' Sony in 2007 gave it to a friend when I upgraded to 55'' it's still going 14 years on, his son has it in his bedroom, only repair its had was an internal fuse replacing.
It was an old school 'Made in Japan' one though, which is why I bought it in the first place over a made in Malaysia Philips.
Did you notice I now have an 'Old Charm' coffee table? Bought locally dirt cheap and very appropriate for a late 40's built council 'ouse :D
Lol - I have now! It's the gentleman's choice, sir, innit?
Marco.
P.S Lovin' the new avatar - that expression on yer chops is priceless!:D
May I suggest a caption for it? 'Ah Betty, it's you.. I'd recognise that beard anywhere!'
bought a 50'' Sony in 2007 gave it to a friend when I upgraded to 55'' it's still going 14 years on, his son has it in his bedroom, only repair its had was an internal fuse replacing.
It was an old school 'Made in Japan' one though, which is why I bought it in the first place over a made in Malaysia Philips.
Yeah, that's probably what made the difference. They'll all be churned out now in Taiwan or Malaysia. Of course, this is considered as 'progress'!:doh:
It's certainly not progress for the consumer, who values quality and longevity in the products they've bought!
Marco.
Beobloke
23-09-2021, 08:09
Nice purchase, Marco.
When mum needed a new TV a couple of years back I went for a 43” Sony Bravia for her and was blown away by the picture quality. It knocked our then 4 year old 55” Samsung into a cocked hat and prompted our own subsequent upgrade!
Still got it, funnily enough, as my sister didn’t want it when mum died. For the money it’s worth now, I’d rather keep it as a spare than sell it for a pittance.
Cheers, Adam. As I said, it's ultimately about personal taste. I'm sure that there are plenty of Samsung, LG and Panasonic users (among others) who swear by their sets!
Like you (and Roy, etc) I just find the colours and overall picture quality on Sony TVs represent more of what I consider as 'right', compared with that on products from other manufacturers. Plus, and this is also important for me, Sony TVs (and most of their other products) usually tend to have a bit more style about them.
Not that I'll be using the metal stand that comes with this TV, as it'll be wall mounted, but it's beautifully made, as is the remote control, and all of that just adds to the pride of ownership:)
Marco.
May I suggest a caption for it? 'Ah Betty, it's you.. I'd recognise that beard anywhere!'
Or 'Open wide & say arse'
Or 'Open wide & say arse'
Hahahaha... 'I promise dear this won't hurt [too much]':eyebrows:
Marco.
Beobloke
23-09-2021, 09:10
Not that I'll be using the metal stand that comes with this TV, as it'll be wall mounted, but it's beautifully made, as is the remote control, and all of that just adds to the pride of ownership:)
Marco.
Both of the TVs we’ve had in our current lounge have been wall-mounted but the latest one has an automated motorised bracket and we love it!
As to remote controls, I reckon ours still takes some beating… ;)
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210923/b4d84abdf84a30013a8cddf3c5b9f134.jpg
Lol - you can't fault the Danes when it comes to style! Do B&O have OLED TVs? If so, they'll no doubt cost a fortune, and probably use the same LG panels as all the others!;)
Marco.
https://sound-affair.com/bang-and-olufsen-product/beovision-eclipse-55-motorised-stand/?utm_source=Google%20Shopping&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=23845&gclid=CjwKCAjwy7CKBhBMEiwA0Eb7am-wbjgXiwzo9NYuFr2OBm-_tNK_eiAn7WeqdgakTALw67VGcCkJrhoCt3sQAvD_BwE
55 inch. 4750 quid
:lol::lol:
That's about the only logical reaction! Hey, I guess there are worse things you could waste your money on:D
Marco.
Did similar a few years ago, bought a 55” Bravia previous years’ model from Argos. Still going strong and great picture once I’d set it up with a file I got from a Sony forum.
Nice one, mate. Like you I've always appreciated the natural appearance of the picture on Sony TVs. It's therefore not surprising that they are often the choice of broadcasters for monitoring purposes;)
Marco.
Do B&O have OLED TVs? If so, they'll no doubt cost a fortune
Yes they do and yes they do https://store.bang-olufsen-richmond.uk/televisions
Beobloke
23-09-2021, 11:52
Ours is the Beovision Eclipse 65" and, looking at the price of the one Grant posted - he's found one that's a bargain! :stalks:
It's based around the older LG C7 OLED panel and the picture is superb. They released a version 2 last year based on the newer GX panel and our B&O dealer tried to tempt us with one, but we weren't convinced the picture was hugely better, plus they've now dropped Spotify support in the v2 which is a disaster as we use that a lot, so we stuck with the 'old clunker'!
Ali Tait
23-09-2021, 12:01
Nice one, mate. Like you I've always appreciated the natural appearance of the picture on Sony TVs. It's therefore not surprising that they are often the choice of broadcasters for monitoring purposes;)
Marco.
Yeah they are decent, probably get an OLED Sony next.
Ours is the Beovision Eclipse 65" and, looking at the price of the one Grant posted - he's found one that's a bargain! :stalks:
It's based around the older LG C7 OLED panel and the picture is superb. They released a version 2 last year based on the newer GX panel and our B&O dealer tried to tempt us with one, but we weren't convinced the picture was hugely better, plus they've now dropped Spotify support in the v2 which is a disaster as we use that a lot, so we stuck with the 'old clunker'!
Fair enough, but someone's B&O fanboyism aside lol, that's a crazy amount to spend on a TV, especially when the likelihood is that the picture quality won't be any (or much) better than the Sony I've just bought!
Marco,
Yeah they are decent, probably get an OLED Sony next.
I would, mate. The 55" one I linked to earlier is a beaut:)
The *absolute most* I'd ever spend on a new TV is £2k, and for that the picture quality would not only need to be beyond AMAZING, but cook and serve me superb meals in the image of a sexy, fishnet-stockinged, French maid!
Hang on, I think I've got one of those already...:eyebrows:;)
Marco.
Beobloke
23-09-2021, 13:40
Fair enough, but someone's B&O fanboyism aside lol, that's a crazy amount to spend on a TV, especially when the likelihood is that the picture quality won't be any (or much) better than the Sony I've just bought!
Marco,
Oh it's silly money, I grant you but, in an attempt to provide a small defence, the price includes built-in left/centre/right speakers comprising 3 mid/bass drivers, two midranges, two tweeters and 450W of amplification - trust me, they're more than good enough for 2-channel music use.
In addition it contains all the necessary surround sound processing architecture so there's no need for a separate A/V receiver - you just plug in the speakers you need and off you go. Heck, you don't even need to 'plug in' as it's fully compatible with any WISA standard wireless speakers (not just B&O ones)!
It covers all the good surround sound modes up to Dolby Digital 7.1 and DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1, plus has built-in controllers that can be configured to external sources, so the remote I showed above also operates our separate Humax box and Yamaha Blu-Ray player.
And, more importantly than any of this, Ursula was able to choose a purple speaker grille to match the lounge carpet. :D
Lol - if they did pink, that would maybe swing the deal for Del:D
...although only if it made chips, served ice-cream, and gave foot rubs whenever she WANTED them!!
Marco.
Lol - if they did pink, that would maybe swing the deal for Del:D
...although only if it made chips, served ice-cream, and gave foot rubs whenever she WANTED them!!
Marco.
someone called?:eyebrows:
Yes, you've been summoned to her room by the princess. You should consider yourself honoured, as men don't normally get in!
Marco.
Yes, you've been summoned to her room by the princess. You should consider yourself honoured, as men don't normally get in!
Marco.
who says im all man:D
Lol... So *that's* where all her make up and spare undies have been going - in creating 'Grantina'!:eyebrows:
You haven't half stretched her Sloggies, btw. When I was hanging them on the line earlier, I noticed they were, erm, a tad 'roomier' than before!:eek::D
Marco.
Lol... So *that's* where all her make up and spare undies have been going - in creating 'Grantina'!:eyebrows:
You haven't half stretched her Sloggies, btw. When I was hanging them on the line earlier, I noticed they were, erm, a tad 'roomier' than before!:eek::D
Marco.
i have to own up. im as straight as a die, sadly for you:eek: well except for bank holidays andmothers day:ner:
Hahaha... Sorry for Del, more like, as she loves playing 'dress up', and has always wanted a plus-size model to play with!:lol:;)
Marco.
Hahaha... Sorry for Del, more like, as she loves playing 'dress up', and has always wanted a plus-size model to play with!:lol:;)
Marco.
what? is she fed up dressing you? :D
Heh-heh - yes she's BORED with me now and WANTS a bigger challenge!:D
Anyway, she's due in from work any minute, so you know what that means [all stations at the ready]....:eek:
Marco.
kettle on, gilbert at the ready, bath running, ready to do foot rub etc.... all at once:eyebrows:
I know mate - the timing takes near-military precision - and woe betide me if I fuck it up:eek:
The other day I committed the heinous crime of forgetting Gilbert... You can probably hear her now in her inimitable style!
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
23-09-2021, 16:59
Ours is the Beovision Eclipse 65" and, looking at the price of the one Grant posted - he's found one that's a bargain! :stalks:
It's based around the older LG C7 OLED panel and the picture is superb. They released a version 2 last year based on the newer GX panel and our B&O dealer tried to tempt us with one, but we weren't convinced the picture was hugely better, plus they've now dropped Spotify support in the v2 which is a disaster as we use that a lot, so we stuck with the 'old clunker'!
Our telly also uses the older LG C7 panel, but that's because it's an LG OLED TV :) We bought a 12 month-old one off Ebay (won it for £650), and we've now had it 2 years. Can't fault the picture, which I can't take credit for (maybe the previous owner tweaked it). Came good as new, with everything, including the £1800 receipt, even in its box, so I'd call that a bargain :) The terrible resale value of tellies really works out for buyers.
I've never understood the desire for higher resolution TVs. I look using a standard res. TV and that is enough to see facial flaws, spots, blackheads etc, and surely higher resolution does not increase the conveyance of 'intelligence', by which I mean information which better enables understanding of what is being conveyed, and any plot.
The important aspects surely are perceiving human emotional expression; facial signals and mannerisms, and clear sound information, this latter IMO badly produced in the first place by programme creators.
It really seems to me that our main aim - getting improved sound quality, is perhaps now an obsolete quest, because we can on the whole get all the information available.
This was not so true in the 70s when The Wall came out, and better Hi-Fi did reveal previously obscured information. (Says he hypocritically as he auditions a pair of Revel Salon 2s in his home comparing with ADAM Tensor Betas).
But regardless, a 55" St. def. TV will do me, especially as I regard most TV as crap.
LOL... Well, Dennis wins the 'Bah Humbug' post award for 2021!:doh::lol:
Marco.
**I've never understood the desire for higher resolution TVs**. I look using a standard res. TV and that is enough to see facial flaws, spots, blackheads etc...
Well, by the same token, you could say: 'I've never understood the desire for higher fidelity audio systems. I listen using a standard-fidelity system, and that is enough to hear bass, midrange and treble, etc, and follow the tune...'
So why bother with higher fidelity audio systems?;) I'm being somewhat flippant of course, but I trust you can see my point...
Increasing the resolution of your TV, in order to see/enjoy a 4K UHD film in all its glory (thus reproducing the source format as faithfully as possible), is as rewarding, if you're into that, as increasing the fidelity of your audio system, in order to hear a high-fidelity music recording in all it's glory (thus reproducing the source format as faithfully as possible), if you're into that.
Therefore, owning a higher resolution TV, is about seeing as MUCH of what's there (detail visually present on the screen), as clearly and realistically as possible, just the same as a higher fidelity audio system is about hearing as MUCH of what's there (musical information on the recording), as clearly and realistically as possible.
So why would you settle for SEEING less than is possible, with your choice of TV, or HEARING less than is possible, with your choice of audio system...?
For enthusiasts of either of the above, the exercise is about experiencing both SOUND and VISION in the most REALISTIC and LIFELIKE way possible, and therefore to the highest standard/resolution that the audio or visual format played is capable of delivering. That is why we own high-fidelity audio systems and high-resolution TVs, in order to enjoy both our favourite music or films to the highest sonic or visual standard - it's as simple as that.
and surely higher resolution does not increase the conveyance of 'intelligence', by which I mean information which better enables understanding of what is being conveyed, and any plot.
That's fundamentally not what it's about. As I've said, the goal is simply to both SEE and HEAR as much of what's there as possible, and not settling for anything less! Certainly speaking for myself, that's where the pleasure is derived from, and why the required effort and expense to achieve it is worth it:)
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
23-09-2021, 23:04
With high resolution TV, it's not simply the sharper detail. With it comes a kind of 'depth' which is can be almost '3D', giving a more immersive experience with films. With SD all of the picture has some degree of blurriness, making it look a little flat, whereas 4K makes the focussed parts 'pop'.
Just my opinion of course, and with most TV programmes I couldn't care less - they're mostly crap anyway.
Yes, Piggurs has just re-emphasised an important point.
Pretty much everything I've written above is in reference to optimising the viewing experience with films, not TV programmes - and also remember, in terms of my circumstances, that the TV is an integral part of a home-cinema system, designed to optimise 4K HDR material, and so to create a believable (as possible) cinematic experience at home, not watching the latest episode of Corrie!
Therefore, how can you reproduce that material accurately, or even at all, without the right equipment?;)
The other aspect that's important to me is making live football, and other sporting events, broadcast in 4K UHD, look and feel as LIFELIKE as possible. In that respect, getting moving images to scroll smoothly, motion flow right, etc, so that the players you're watching appear as real as possible (not merely as blurred cardboard cutouts in comparison), is difficult to achieve, and this is also where the best hi-res TVs, with powerful processors, come into their own:)
Marco.
This is spot on from Steve:
With high resolution TV, it's not simply the sharper detail. With it comes a kind of 'depth' which is can be almost '3D', giving a more immersive experience with films. With SD all of the picture has some degree of blurriness, making it look a little flat, whereas 4K makes the focussed parts 'pop'.
walpurgis
24-09-2021, 07:09
LOL... Well, Dennis wins the 'Bah Humbug' post for 2021!:doh::lol:
Marco.
I'm quite good at those Marco :D.
Indeed, mate... That trait should really somehow be reflected in your title!:eyebrows:
Marco.
Nice one Marco,
OLED is steps ahead of anything else,
big fan of Sony TVs here too, from way back in the early Trinitron days.
Had my own Sony OLED calibrated,
and its well worth doing.
Its probably an LG panel thats in your telly (a good thing),
but its Sony's processing that makes it special.
Enjoy Sir.
Cheers, mate. I agree on all counts, including the LG panel and Sony processing thing. Probably the best of both worlds:)
I shall speak with 'Santa' about the calibration:D
Marco.
https://i.imgur.com/pBNwd4s.jpg
HA - now *that* is a LOOK!:lol:
Ok, some question-ees:
So what company did you use for the calibration (link to their website, please)? How much did you pay? What gear did they bring with them for the job (just curious)? And how would you describe the difference/level of improvement, post calibration?
:cool:
Marco.
Cool.
Vincent Teo from HDTVTEST did mine,
you know Me Man...do it once and do it right?
Probably as good as it gets.
Like in Hifi, its funny how your brain gets used to things being a certain way..that is, until its sorted properly?
Thought with all the mods I'd done to my Oppo bluray player I'd stick a fork in it and call it done, especially as my telly is pretty good.
Calibration makes a noticable improvement and is well worth doing.
For me it enhances what the Sony OLED brings to the table, everything's more natural looking, to the point where you stop looking for faults and say "Hell, this is awesome".
Better contrast ratio's, colour gamuts n stuff just means the picture looks far more natural and REAL.
Subconsciously your eyes pick up on this stuff....
Like in Hifi, one of those things that you miss when its not there.
Spoil your eyes Marco,
your not getting the best out your telly without calibration
(and I can say that even given mines was a top tier flagship Sony OLED)
Vincent's one of the best in the business
Give him the work.
the https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/calibration
HA - now *that* is a LOOK!:lol:
Ok, some question-ees:
So what company did you use for the calibration (link to their website, please)? How much did you pay? What gear did they bring with them for the job (just curious)? And how would you describe the difference/level of improvement, post calibration?
:cool:
Marco.
did mine years ago using an ap on my ipad via my apple tv box to tvs.. mine were hardly out at all after i had set them by eye, surprisingly. must have a good eye:D
Some cool TV calibration tech if you have an Apple TV 4K and an Iphone....
An app on your phone calibrates your TV.
I, have neither,
So just putting it out there for those that do. :)
Cool.
Vincent Teo from HDTVTEST did mine,
you know Me Man...do it once and do it right?
Probably as good as it gets.
Like in Hifi, its funny how your brain gets used to things being a certain way..that is, until its sorted properly?
Thought with all the mods I'd done to my Oppo bluray player I'd stick a fork in it and call it done, especially as my telly is pretty good.
Calibration makes a noticable improvement and is well worth doing.
For me it enhances what the Sony OLED brings to the table, everything's more natural looking, to the point where you stop looking for faults and say "Hell, this is awesome".
Better contrast ratio's, colour gamuts n stuff just means the picture looks far more natural and REAL.
Subconsciously your eyes pick up on this stuff....
Like in Hifi, one of those things that you miss when its not there.
Spoil your eyes Marco,
your not getting the best out your telly without calibration
(and I can say that even given mines was a top tier flagship Sony OLED)
Vincent's one of the best in the business
Give him the work.
the https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/calibration
Thanks for that, dude. All noted, and pretty much what I'd thought. It's defo on the cards!:cool:
Marco.
did mine years ago using an ap on my ipad via my apple tv box to tvs.. mine were hardly out at all after i had set them by eye, surprisingly. must have a good eye:D
Not sure that's possible mate, without the right gear, light meters, etc. It's pretty technical stuff. There's a whole area of meaningless (to a layman) gobbledygook within the Advanced Settings on my old TV, that's solely for the use of calibration engineer, never mind this new one!:eek:
Therefore, the app you used, as effective as it was, will have had its limitations.
Marco.
Well, by the same token, you could say: 'I've never understood the desire for higher fidelity audio systems. I listen using a standard-fidelity system, and that is enough to hear bass, midrange and treble, etc, and follow the tune...'
So why bother with higher fidelity audio systems?;) I'm being somewhat flippant of course, but I trust you can see my point...
Increasing the resolution of your TV, in order to see/enjoy a 4K UHD film in all its glory (thus reproducing the source format as faithfully as possible), is as rewarding, if you're into that, as increasing the fidelity of your audio system, in order to hear a high-fidelity music recording in all it's glory (thus reproducing the source format as faithfully as possible), if you're into that.
Therefore, owning a higher resolution TV, is about seeing as MUCH of what's there (detail visually present on the screen), as clearly and realistically as possible, just the same as a higher fidelity audio system is about hearing as MUCH of what's there (musical information on the recording), as clearly and realistically as possible.
So why would you settle for SEEING less than is possible, with your choice of TV, or HEARING less than is possible, with your choice of audio system...?
For enthusiasts of either of the above, the exercise is about experiencing both SOUND and VISION in the most REALISTIC and LIFELIKE way possible, and therefore to the highest standard/resolution that the audio or visual format played is capable of delivering. That is why we own high-fidelity audio systems and high-resolution TVs, in order to enjoy both our favourite music or films to the highest sonic or visual standard - it's as simple as that.
That's fundamentally not what it's about. As I've said, the goal is simply to both SEE and HEAR as much of what's there as possible, and not settling for anything less! Certainly speaking for myself, that's where the pleasure is derived from, and why the required effort and expense to achieve it is worth it:)
Marco.
I think that I have alluded to most of the points you have made, and the latter hypocrisy on my part with speakers is an exploration with a kind of reticence about the endeavour, it almost being an exercise.
My TV is limited to only freeview, which probably does not warrant any better resolution, but at one time I did get HD and noticed a greater sheen on horses coats. With my newer Humax, even though HD, my station reception is crap due to geography.
Nice one Marco,
OLED is steps ahead of anything else,
big fan of Sony TVs here too, from way back in the early Trinitron days.
Had my own Sony OLED calibrated,
and its well worth doing.
Its probably an LG panel thats in your telly (a good thing),
but its Sony's processing that makes it special.
Enjoy Sir.
Sonys were very highly regarded in the trinitron era, but less so later. They were criticised for having an over etched edge to things.
I'm due a complete revamp soon, and will go OLED on your recommendation, but always wondered about LG stuff.
I'm due a complete revamp soon, and will go OLED on your recommendation, but always wondered about LG stuff.
Yes, get a Sony if you want to see what an LG panel is capable of!;)
Marco.
I think that I have alluded to most of the points you have made, and the latter hypocrisy on my part with speakers is an exploration with a kind of reticence about the endeavour, it almost being an exercise.
My TV is limited to only freeview, which probably does not warrant any better resolution, but at one time I did get HD and noticed a greater sheen on horses coats. With my newer Humax, even though HD, my station reception is crap due to geography.
Then Dennis, especially with your revelation of the latter, forget about broadcast material (as a high-quality source) and buy yourself a 4K Blu-ray player, and some 4K discs, of films, documentaries or programmes you like (Amazon is your friend), as given your circumstances, that will be the ONLY way you'll do justice to an OLED...
Otherwise, you're wasting your time, and would be akin to fronting with your hi-fi system with a DVD player from Tesco!
Marco.
You bare probably right Marco, my outlook is hampered by my past working for what was once a great broadcasting corporation when its standards were the highest. How they have plummeted!
Probably not being as wealthy as some here, my family script of living in paucity and minimal expenditure, to save on resources, continues to affect my now relatively comfortable position.
There are those that claim that any DVD player which produces the waveform with no errors will sound like any other.
Probably not being as wealthy as some here, my family script of living in paucity and minimal expenditure, to save on resources, continues to affect my now relatively comfortable position.
.
lol me too. Have to keep reminding myself that if I need something or want something I can just go ahead and buy it. That still seems weird to me.
Although as of next year I'll be going back to the paucity.
It is also the case that my 'internal algorithm' (outlook on life), is such that to me if the improved technology does not allow a greater perception of life's real issues by being higher resolution, acquiring better sound and vision becomes rather an academic exercise.
Something I said a while ago, or maybe elsewhere, was:
"If you are going to take poison, does it matter what the spoon is made of or whether or not it is clean?"
But then I do think it is Armageddon we are hurtling towards, and from recent surveys 56% of the population also had this view.
It is also the case that my 'internal algorithm' (outlook on life), is such that to me if the improved technology does not allow a greater perception of life's real issues by being higher resolution, acquiring better sound and vision becomes rather an academic exercise.
Something I said a while ago, or maybe elsewhere, was:
"If you are going to take poison, does it matter what the spoon is made of or whether or not it is clean?"
But then I do think it is Armageddon we are hurtling towards, and from recent surveys 56% of the population also had this view.
"I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion... If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way..." - Ricky Roma.
When I bought my Sony 4K 'Smart' telly (forced upon me as the video cassette player I was using to convert the digital signal to analogue for my ancient (1982) analogue 18" CRT st decided to stop working) I went down to my local family owned TV shop and looked around. They know me well, so allowed me to watch programmes 'off air' (rather than 'whizz bang' demonstration discs), and play with the settings.
Having chosen a Sony set, it was delivered and set up for me. I was quite happy with the results; especially impressed with details such as the glasses of water provided for newscasters and interviews - before you could not see through them, now they look just like glasses of water, complete with an image of the background.
Having been aware of calibration services, I download one off the web (can't remember exactly which one it was, but it was Sony approved) and let it do its job. Sad to say the end results were poorer than the previous setting, so I reset them myself by eye. Whether it is correct or not doesn't bother me as they are my eyes and i I am the one who looks at the TV. Admittedly my TV cost less than the ones discussed here - but I would no more pay someone £500 to set up my telly than I would to have someone come in to set up my audio system.
You bare probably right Marco, my outlook is hampered by my past working for what was once a great broadcasting corporation when its standards were the highest. How they have plummeted!
Probably not being as wealthy as some here, my family script of living in paucity and minimal expenditure, to save on resources, continues to affect my now relatively comfortable position.
There are those that claim that any DVD player which produces the waveform with no errors will sound like any other.
Lol - I totally agree on your point about (I presume) the BBC, but I think you've misunderstood me somewhat:)
Firstly, if you want to see what an OLED TV is truly capable of, then you need to provide it with the right (and also best) signal of the required resolution.
'Right' meaning, a 4K UHD one, which you're only going to get with either 4K UHD broadcasts (available on the likes of Netflix, Sky Movies/Sky Sports, or from a 4K Blu-ray player), but none of which is available on Freeview. To receive 4K broadcast material, you'll have to sign up with one of the necessary providers.
'Best' meaning, in a good reception area where a strong signal (for broadcast material) is guaranteed. Therefore, until you can provide an OLED TV with the required quality of source signal or material, there's little point in having one.
Therefore, either sort out what an OLED needs, to show what it can do (provide it with the right 'infrastructure'), or stick with a standard HD TV, but if you want to upgrade, then to a better set than you have now, but ensure that you're getting at least HD quality from your Freeview box.
My point about fronting your system with a DVD player from Tesco was in terms of the fact that you wouldn't use such a crap source with an otherwise good system. I don't know what your current digital source is, but I'm presuming it's better than a cheap DVD player from Tesco?;)
Therefore, the analogy was that feeding an OLED TV with an inferior 'source signal' would be akin to fronting your hi-fi system with the same (an inferior source), and so not doing the other bits justice:)
Marco.
Having been aware of calibration services, I download one off the web (can't remember exactly which one it was, but it was Sony approved) and let it do its job. Sad to say the end results were poorer than the previous setting, so I reset them myself by eye. Whether it is correct or not doesn't bother me as they are my eyes and i I am the one who looks at the TV. Admittedly my TV cost less than the ones discussed here - but I would no more pay someone £500 to set up my telly than I would to have someone come in to set up my audio system.
That was your mistake right there, IMHO. Such downloads cannot achieve what a TV calibration engineer is trained to do, and has the necessary equipment for. You're only playing at it.
These guys are experts in their field, and so know how to utilise specialist sections of the advanced settings on your TV, and in conjunction with their equipment, optimise the colour balance of your TV, which trust me, is *impossible* to do by eye. This is one area of AV where measurement apparatus is essential.
Fair enough if you don't want to pay for what it costs for professional calibration (which is £300, not £500), but don't expect to get the same results from a download!:ner:;)
Marco.
"I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion... If everyone thinks one thing, then I say, bet the other way..." - Ricky Roma.
In general I agree and have thought that for a long time, most are like sheep and do not really give things a great deal of thought.
But on the question of where we are as a species, and with what I see as overwhelming evidence of failings on most fronts, maybe they have realised what is going on.
Re your last points Marco, I fully understand the situation, but my Freeview is compromised geographically, so Freesat becomes a consideration, and I am still reticent to become involved in more monthly bills.
walpurgis
25-09-2021, 14:08
Funny how some folk bump up the sharpness, brightness and contrast thinking it appears better. It never looks right.
Funny how some folk bump up the sharpness, brightness and contrast thinking it appears better. It never looks right.
Agreed - increasing the sharpness too much creates a 'halo' around objects which obscures detail. Increasing contrast too much looses shadow detail and washes out detail in snow or sky. Brightness needs to be adjusted according to the ambient light level in which the TV is viewed.
i usually as always, start with a good black n white picture as a base. get that right and your half way there
i usually as always, start with a good black n white picture as a base. get that right and your half way there
That is what I used to do with analogue CRT sets: make sure the black is black (and not a very dark colour) and the white white (with no trace of colour). After that I would adjust the 'colour' so that skin tones looked as natural and realistic as possible.
Interestingly the 'blacks' on an old CRT were an optical illusion: clearly the blackest black cannot be blacker than the colour of the screen when the set is switched off. Yet the screen of a non-activated CRT is a dark grey. The 'blacks', only appear black by contrast with what is around them in the picture: if a scene remained black for a while it would start to look dark grey.
The Black Adder
25-09-2021, 15:17
I'm going to get an OLED in the next year or so... The one I saw recently was a Sony but the price was £2500
Looks really cool, Marco.. :)
indeed.. depending whats around the dark bit depends on how dark you percieve it. some screen tinting was done too. old crts used to have x-ray shielding too at back etc.
Just had the TV delivered and tuned in - all good, apart from the fact that the existing wall bracket isn't suitable for it, so it's had to go on its stand on top of the cabinet, leaving no space for the centre speaker, which temporarily has had to go on the floor...:doh:
Therefore, am picking up one of these tomorrow from Richer Sounds, which will do the job: https://www.richersounds.com/sanus-vmf720-b2-slim-full-motion-32-55.html
...and hopefully getting my one of my mates round to fit it, who's good with a drill!:D
Just watching the footy with the TV 'as is', and the picture quality is impressive even at that. Won't be able to have a proper play until tomorrow, as we're going to the pictures tonight to see this: https://www.warnerbros.co.uk/movies/the-many-saints-of-newark?gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV62Eq6kxl7oF K8rbbFWi2cJL0WJYZOCn--KQb-eZnb3mWmtCtnPr_8aAqZfEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds#book-tickets
More later!:cool:
Marco.
was it too big for stand you had, or wrong alignment?
That was your mistake right there, IMHO. Such downloads cannot achieve what a TV calibration engineer is trained to do, and has the necessary equipment for. You're only playing at it.
These guys are experts in their field, and so know how to utilise specialist sections of the advanced settings on your TV, and in conjunction with their equipment, optimise the colour balance of your TV, which trust me, is *impossible* to do by eye. This is one area of AV where measurement apparatus is essential.
Fair enough if you don't want to pay for what it costs for professional calibration (which is £300, not £500), but don't expect to get the same results from a download!:ner:;)
Marco.
My telly was £600 I'm not going to pay half as much again for calibration. Don't know about any others but on mine there's nothing arcane in the advanced settings. It was pretty easy to get it how I want it.
was it too big for stand you had, or wrong alignment?
I didn't have it on a stand mate, it was on the wall, but the wall bracket was too small to fit this TV, so had to get a bigger one:)
At the moment, it's been fitted to it's stand and on top of my TV cabinet, where the centre speaker usually goes, so not ideal. Have to say the picture quality is superb, even just out the box!:cool:
Marco.
sorry yeah i meant wall bracket lol.. oh well, it has to be. good your happy with it.:)
My telly was £600 I'm not going to pay half as much again for calibration. Don't know about any others but on mine there's nothing arcane in the advanced settings. It was pretty easy to get it how I want it.
You're not getting the point, mate. I'll explain properly when I come back from the flicks.
Needless to say though, if I only paid £600 for a TV, I wouldn't be spending £300 on calibration either, but in my situation, and certainly Gaz's, where we have OLEDs and both want them maxed out, picture wise, which you really can't do properly yourself, then it makes more sense.
Right, must dash!
Laters:)
Marco.
Actually, I don't think I have made my point clearly regarding the spoon and the poison Marco.
The poison was not the technically poor signals corrupting the art and hence the enjoyment, but the abysmal art containing either nothing emotionally stimulating, (ie. a better instinctual understanding of the human predicament), or intellectually educating about the spheres of life.
For that reason I stopped watching soaps decades ago, although they do attempt to educate, (rather patronisingly and with banal content).
BBC 4 is a little better if you can tolerate up themselves academics showcasing themselves having a wonderful time whilst ingratiating themselves with each other, and often using condescending tones.
That was your mistake right there, IMHO. Such downloads cannot achieve what a TV calibration engineer is trained to do, and has the necessary equipment for. You're only playing at it.
These guys are experts in their field, and so know how to utilise specialist sections of the advanced settings on your TV, and in conjunction with their equipment, optimise the colour balance of your TV, which trust me, is *impossible* to do by eye. This is one area of AV where measurement apparatus is essential.
Fair enough if you don't want to pay for what it costs for professional calibration (which is £300, not £500), but don't expect to get the same results from a download!:ner:;)
Marco.
That's not what you said in another thread: https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?56294-who-calibrates-their-tv-settings&highlight=calibration+download (post 12 et seq.).
Given the cost of my Sony TV, any improvement gained through using a calibration service would be minimal and wouldn't justify the expense.
Were I to spend £1,500 or so on a larger sized OLED screen, then having it calibrated would make more sense.
im a believer of using my eyes to set up what im gonna watch. i dont mind something that will assist me in that tho.
Actually, I don't think I have made my point clearly regarding the spoon and the poison Marco.
The poison was not the technically poor signals corrupting the art and hence the enjoyment, but the abysmal art containing either nothing emotionally stimulating, (ie. a better instinctual understanding of the human predicament), or intellectually educating about the spheres of life.
For that reason I stopped watching soaps decades ago, although they do attempt to educate, (rather patronisingly and with banal content).
BBC 4 is a little better if you can tolerate up themselves academics showcasing themselves having a wonderful time whilst ingratiating themselves with each other, and often using condescending tones.
IMHO, broadcast TV is no worse now than it was years ago. You have to be selective: I buy the Radio Times and go through it circling those programmes that interest me. Now that we have dozens of channels to watch (especially if you have a 'smart' TV), there is usually something which interests me: science programmes; history (and archaeology) programmes; music programmes, and the quiz programmes on Monday BBC2 (these stop my brain from turning into porridge).
Then there is programmes such as 'The Repair Shop' where I marvel at the skill of the repairers/renovators, and programmes about antiques.
Finally, if you are not moved by the wonderful wildlife programmes, then it might be best to give up and give your TV to someone else. :D
im a believer of using my eyes to set up what im gonna watch. i dont mind something that will assist me in that tho.
Agreed - which is what I did.
Which of these images is correctly colour calibrated? Top, middle or bottom?
https://i.ibb.co/xJ1K6sJ/tv.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
white balance is best in middle
That's not what you said in another thread: https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?56294-who-calibrates-their-tv-settings&highlight=calibration+download (post 12 et seq.).
Given the cost of my Sony TV, any improvement gained through using a calibration service would be minimal and wouldn't justify the expense.
Were I to spend £1,500 or so on a larger sized OLED screen, then having it calibrated would make more sense.
Indeed, which is the position I'm now in, but wasn't before when I made that post in 2018:)
Quite simply, the better the TV you've got, the more it warrants getting the most out of it - and btw, this particular Sony is STUNNING!:eek:
I set it up last night using the YT video I posted earlier, and that gave a notable improvement in all areas, particularly in terms of sorting out brightness and black & whites. However, the difference between this OLED and the previous Sony I had, which was pretty impressive on its own, is really night and day.
I'd say like going from using a pair of £1000 speakers, to £3000 speakers, or more - a BIG (a very noticeable) jump in performance, in this case just sheer resolution/definition and clarity - *especially* with 4K HDR Blu-rays, which now really come into their own!!:wow:
Marco.
white balance is best in middle
Yes, I'd agree, but it's really guesswork when viewing the image on a computer screen.
Btw, not sure about on your TV or Martin's, but there's a whole section on this Sony, under 'Expert' settings (a level above of Advanced), full of all manner of controls in terms of adjusting the colour balance and black and white levels, which is designed for use by a calibration engineer.
There's simply no way you'd be able to optimise the settings by eye - and that's an area I'll be investigating in due course, with my local friendly engineer!:cool:
Marco.
walpurgis
26-09-2021, 13:16
Can one say? Cameras and associated programmes will give different results even on 'default' settings, so images will vary regardless of monitors or TVs.
white balance is best in middle
Correct.
Top is obviously too warm, bottom one could be right except you can see the clouds above the hills in the background are better defined on the middle one, bottom is marginally 'too cold.'
I agree that the optimal way to calibrate is to get in a bloke with a spectroradiometer to do it but it's not worth £300 to me. I would certainly do it if I was setting up a dedicated home cinema room with a projector or 200'' screen, at that level you might as well get it perfect and the cost is then is only a tiny fraction of the overall spend.
Can one say? Cameras and associated programmes will give different results even on 'default' settings, so images will vary regardless of monitors or TVs.
Yes. There's an industry standard for calibration called D65 - https://www.waveformlighting.com/color-matching/what-is-d65-and-what-is-it-used-for
I agree that the optimal way to calibrate is to get in a bloke with a spectroradiometer to do it but it's not worth £300 to me. I would certainly do it if I was setting up a dedicated home cinema room with a projector or 200'' screen, at that level you might as well get it perfect and the cost is then is only a tiny fraction of the overall spend.
Yes, but no-one's asking you to do it, daftee, are they, so why are you harping on about it?:doh::D
I'm talking about ME, not you. The way you're going on, it sounds like you're begrudging me from doing it, as if you think I'm daft, or have I got that wrong?;)
If so, perhaps both Barry and you could simply say, 'Go for it Marco, if you want, as with your TV it makes more sense than doing it with ours', rather than instead what's coming across as being keen to piss on my parade.
Just sayin...
Marco.
Yes, but no-one's asking you to do it, daftee, are they, so why are you harping on about it?:doh::D
I'm talking about ME, not you. The way you're going on, it sounds like you're begrudging me from doing it, as if you think I'm daft, or have I got that wrong?;)
If so, perhaps both Barry and you could simply say, 'Go for it Marco, if you want, as with your TV it makes more sense than doing it with ours', rather than instead what's coming across as being keen to piss on my parade.
Marco.
sorry didn't realise I was 'harping on' about it. You brought it up as a subject of discussion. Obviously there's a cost/benefit consideration with something like this which I simply mentioned in passing.
I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging you to do it. :D
In fact I thought you'd already done it.
Nope, not yet. But yes, since I've mentioned the subject of professional calibration, you and Barry have been in the 'Bah Humbug' camp, whereas Gaz has been the opposite, and given that he's both done it to his own TV, and owns an OLED (a better one that mine), I think I'll follow his advice, not that of the grumps!;)
So.... Let's see more positivity, on the subject of professional calibration, than negativity, and niggling about the cost. I'm spending my money, not yours!:ner:
Marco.
Correct.
Top is obviously too warm, bottom one could be right except you can see the clouds above the hills in the background are better defined on the middle one, bottom is marginally 'too cold.'
I agree that the optimal way to calibrate is to get in a bloke with a spectroradiometer to do it but it's not worth £300 to me. I would certainly do it if I was setting up a dedicated home cinema room with a projector or 200'' screen, at that level you might as well get it perfect and the cost is then is only a tiny fraction of the overall spend.
bottom has excess blue. its up to the individual of course so its "what floats your boat". not sure how dear modern oleds are but they are out of my pay bracket. i'd quite like a bigger screen and hdr but as tv in livingroom is picture wise, spot on still, it'll do me until either i or it keels over:) probably me
walpurgis
26-09-2021, 14:19
Yes. There's an industry standard for calibration called D65 - https://www.waveformlighting.com/color-matching/what-is-d65-and-what-is-it-used-for
I expect like most standards, that will only be as good as the equipment doing the measuring, which in turn will only be as good as the calibration gear it was tested with and of course the calibration gear will have to meet measurable standards and so on :).
Not forgetting, if it was done on a Tuesday, during a leap year.
Marco.
Not forgetting, if it was done on a Tuesday, during a leap year.
Marco.
on the thighs of a virgin:eyebrows:
Yes, but no-one's asking you to do it, daftee, are they, so why are you harping on about it?:doh::D
I'm talking about ME, not you. The way you're going on, it sounds like you're begrudging me from doing it, as if you think I'm daft, or have I got that wrong?;)
If so, perhaps both Barry and you could simply say, 'Go for it Marco, if you want, as with your TV it makes more sense than doing it with ours', rather than instead what's coming across as being keen to piss on my parade.
Just sayin...
Marco.
I'm not begrudging you anything Marco. Simply pointing out what I had done to set up my Sony using a set up video, you had done in the past to set up your Sony TV, despite them being different models.
Where I did go wrong was to download and employ a set up application. The results were worse than what I had previously achieved, so I reset everything by eye using the advanced features in the TV's setup menu etc.
I can well believe your new set is better than the last one and I'm sure you will have many happy hours of enjoyable viewing.
No worries, Barry, and thanks. My point really was that I'd like to see less of 'what I'd do with my TV', and more simply concentrating on what benefits professional calibration could have on mine, which after all is what the thread is about;)
It's about maxing out the performance of a latest technology OLED, not something else...
Quite often these threads, although it probably happens unconsciously from those concerned, where someone suggests doing something that doesn't quite meet with the their approval, descend more into negativity about the latter, than positivity about the potential benefits of the suggestion - and I'd like to see it the other way round.
After all, I'm not here to recommend or sell professional calibration to anyone, with their TV; simply surmise on the potential benefits I might enjoy from the process with mine:)
Marco.
The Black Adder
26-09-2021, 17:51
I used to always have my monitors professionally calibrated. The difference from stock was dramatic on video. I still have my EIZO monitor calibrated as I can't work on anything else.
I think it's a very worthwhile thing to do on any screen. Flat or CRT. And if you are spending a lot on a bit of kit, you want it to perform at its best.
I used to always have my monitors professionally calibrated. The difference from stock was dramatic on video. I still have my EIZO monitor calibrated as I can't work on anything else.
I think it's a very worthwhile thing to do on any screen. Flat or CRT. And if you are spending a lot on a bit of kit, you want it to perform at its best.
Exactly so, Jo, especially the last bit, and it's obvious some are more passionate about that than others.
I think you and I (and Gaz) are similar in that respect, in that the things that we own, love and value most (animate objects aside, lol), we WANT to extract the absolute maximum from, and I'm as passionate about doing that with my TV, as with any aspect of my hi-fi system, house or car!:)
Average or 'adequate' is *never* enough; only AWESOME will do!!:exactly:
Marco.
We're just back from visiting friends, They were watching footy on a 55" screen, Boy are they big - too big for me!
First time I've had the chance to sit down and watch a 4K Blu-ray since I've had the TV, so I stuck on 1916, in Dolby Vision, and it's a different world! :stalks::wow:
I reckon it's about as three-dimensional as 2D can get! Images are just 'alive' in front of you, and the 'sheen' and texture of colours that react so strikingly to how OLED screens process light, is nothing short of breathtaking!
This truly is an altogether different level of picture quality, but it's not (yet) possible with 4K broadcast material. As impressive as the latter is, and it is impressive, Dolby Vision is something else...
Marco.
We're just back from visiting friends, They were watching footy on a 55" screen, Boy are they big - too big for me!
Lol - big screens look surprisingly different when they're wall-mounted;)
Oh, and when was the last time you were at the cinema - do you baulk at the size of the screen there too, which makes a 55" TV look like a postage stamp!:D
Marco.
IMHO, broadcast TV is no worse now than it was years ago. You have to be selective: I buy the Radio Times and go through it circling those programmes that interest me. Now that we have dozens of channels to watch (especially if you have a 'smart' TV), there is usually something which interests me: science programmes; history (and archaeology) programmes; music programmes, and the quiz programmes on Monday BBC2 (these stop my brain from turning into porridge).
Then there is programmes such as 'The Repair Shop' where I marvel at the skill of the repairers/renovators, and programmes about antiques.
Finally, if you are not moved by the wonderful wildlife programmes, then it might be best to give up and give your TV to someone else. :D
All art depends on social norms, ie. a context, to have a significance or relevance to the receiving audience, and this is probably in the case of our media a statistically determined set of events. In music it is well know that for example, a single may be released and fail to chart, but when released later it then resonates more with the psychology of the population and is a success. This actually happened with David Gray's White Ladder.
I have been, long before The Repair Shop, doing such things to a similar standard for decades. (I made a pair of calf hide pads for my Wharfdale Isodynamic headphones in 1985 for example.
I have been working at my personal development, other than career that is, for about 50 years, and relatively, very little stimulates me further. I have no trouble avoiding the brain to porridge scenario, and having been very selective, find increasingly that fewer and fewer programmes stimulate me, I think because of my psychological development.
Though science is very interesting, there is a limit to the amount I can tolerate of absorbing scientific facts, and also watching endless programmes on nature, although I love nature in the raw.
For similar reasons I do not read nursery rhymes, or do quadratic equations any more, and need to have another go at Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Yes, I'd agree, but it's really guesswork when viewing the image on a computer screen.
Btw, not sure about on your TV or Martin's, but there's a whole section on this Sony, under 'Expert' settings (a level above of Advanced), full of all manner of controls in terms of adjusting the colour balance and black and white levels, which is designed for use by a calibration engineer.
There's simply no way you'd be able to optimise the settings by eye - and that's an area I'll be investigating in due course, with my local friendly engineer!:cool:
Marco.
Circle of confusion surely applies here.
Sorry, don't know what you mean?
Marco.
Toole (JBL and Revel), did research into speaker preferences in both schooled and unschooled populations.
He formalised the notion that we are in a difficult position with assessing any speaker because the material with which we assess has been recorded using another speaker, and it will inevitably have inaccuracies correlated with the errors of that speaker; as a result there is no absolute reference with which to assess.
It can be Googled.
This surely applies to visual media as well; with those three posted pics, unless we know the nature of the original real situation, we cannot know which most closely approximates to it.
Ah yes, I see what you're getting at now. However, the very same applies with hi-fi.
None of us know "the nature of the original situation", as in what the recording sounded like when it left the studio, but that doesn't stop us striving for some notion of 'sonic accuracy' (based on our judgement of such), or what we consider sounds best, with our audio systems.
And the same applies for home-cinema enthusiasts, seeking to obtain the most lifelike image on their screens as possible, based on their notion of 'visual accuracy', or what they like the look of best. Within that goal, the role of a calibration engineer is simply to optimise the screen (TV) for best performance, based on the light conditions present where the screen is being used, using his or her calibration apparatus.
However, much as with striving for our notion of 'accuracy' with audio, or simply what we like the sound of best, using our ears as the final arbiter, regardless of what any equipment deems as best, in terms of optimising the picture on our TV screens, OUR own eyes must act as the final arbiter, as far as ascertaining what WE like the look of best, as ultimately that's the only 'best' that matters!
Therefore, if/when I arrange for a calibration engineer to call and (attempt) to optimise/further improve the picture on my TV, and in the final analysis I don't consider what he or she has done as an improvement, then I'll revert to what I had before, but I'm really not expecting that to happen:)
Marco.
Totally on board with this.
Appreciate the value of things here, so why not get the best out them?
Most of us here aren't satisfied going to Curry's, buying a Bluetooth soundbar and saying Well, that's the music system sorted!
Shared interest in improving the experience, whether from better interconnects, trying tube amps, open baffle speakers, better vinyl setups, vintage kit....
Diffferent boats to float for different folks,
What they enjoy and what we get out this hobby of ours.
More in common than is different, just different flavours sometimes.
Enjoy AV as well as hifi here,
had a 5.1 setup back in the day but got rid of it all when I worked out (for what floats MY boat) that big surround sound at home distracts from the experience,
Would have been different if I had a huge dedicated cinema room, but no, just a normal living room.
A good well sorted 2 channel sound setup ticks the audio box, but the REAL cinematic immersion comes from the Visuals.
Before I got my Sony OLED had a 50" Pioneer plasma,
and that, calibrated,.with a D65 backlighting setup just drew you into the movie in a way my "big" 5.1 sound setup only distracted from.
With OLED it's a big step up again,
And because of how it works (Black's are pixels that are switched OFF) along with HDR, Dolby Vision and the like) make for an amazing experience.
But not everyone wants or needs that, which is OK.
Maybe they'd rather upgrade their Car, Espresso machine, or even a nice Holiday for them and the better half.
Whatever tickles you Pickle I say. :)
Exactly so, Jo, especially the last bit, and it's obvious some are more passionate about that than others.
I think you and I (and Gaz) are similar in that respect, in that the things that we own, love and value most (animate objects aside, lol), we WANT to extract the absolute maximum from, and I'm as passionate about doing that with my TV, as with any aspect of my hi-fi system, house or car!:)
Average or 'adequate' is *never* enough; only AWESOME will do!!:exactly:
Marco.
unlike loudspeakers there is an industry standard for screen calibration, I mentioned it further up the thread. So circle of confusion does not apply.
Agree with Martin,
But as with everything its not always black and white.
As far as Callibration goes...
AV folks talk about "getting as close to the Directors original vision" with tweaking picture to a "standard'.
That's a great thing,
But there's no such a thing as a Directors "Original Vision"!
The 'Directors original vision" is a marketing term, given a lot of the time (unless your Christopher Nolan) a Director is up against others who push against him till final cut?
He doesn't always get what he wants.
And even if he does,
What if you find the colours muted, or just too much like a video game cut scene?
Like in a music recording,
Unless you have a detailed breakdown of players, setting and intent of the recording, there's just too many variables to know (or care) about.
Just enjoy it!
And if it means turning down the treble on that Oasis album...to enjoy it better.. what's wrong with that?
unlike loudspeakers there is an industry standard for screen calibration, I mentioned it further up the thread. So circle of confusion does not apply.
Indeed, but as I've just said, ultimately it still comes down to what YOU prefer, industry standard or not. That's why, although I'm not expecting it to happen, if when an engineer calls and sets up my TV to said industry standard (or whatever else he suggests will improve the picture I've got), and I prefer the way it was before, then I'll revert to that. Simples.
However, I want to see what that looks like first, so at least I know I've tried it, and therefore can't get any better than I've managed to achieve so far myself:)
Marco.
of course its all about what an individual wants and sees as value to them, and gaz and marco think it good value so should go ahead and enjoy it.
Totally on board with this.
Appreciate the value of things here, so why not get the best out them?
Most of us here aren't satisfied going to Curry's, buying a Bluetooth soundbar and saying Well, that's the music system sorted!
Shared interest in improving the experience, whether from better interconnects, trying tube amps, open baffle speakers, better vinyl setups, vintage kit....
Indeed, but I suspect that the majority of TV-owning audiophiles aren't as passionate about picture quality, as sound quality, and so aren't as 'on board' as us with doing all that they can to optimise the former, as much as they would the latter - and that's fine. However, they should appreciate that for us its different, and if we can afford it, we'll spend what's necessary in order to achieve our goal, such as paying £300, or whatever, to have our ultra-high definition TVs professionally calibrated;)
However, this is where we differ, dude...
had a 5.1 setup back in the day but got rid of it all when I worked out (for what floats MY boat) that big surround sound at home distracts from the experience,
Would have been different if I had a huge dedicated cinema room, but no, just a normal living room.
Compared with some, I only have a very modest home-cinema system, in a small lounge, but despite many limitations, it works extremely well, and for me, distracts [or detracts] from nothing!
As I said, I was watching the film 1917 last night, in Dolby Vision, and the sheer quality of the visuals (which you'll also be used to, most likely to an even higher standard with your OLED) was honestly nothing short of breathtaking, not just in terms of fine details, which are normally blurred to the status of indistinctness on non-OLED TVs, but simply how strikingly lifelike the scenes were that were unfolding in front of me, such that I felt I could 'jump in' and be part of it, in turn creating the most immersive viewing experience I've ever had at home from movies.
Honestly folks, the difference a quality OLED screen makes, given an appropriately good hi-def signal, is NOT subtle - this is a veritable game changer!:eek::exactly:
The above, coupled with the superb sound quality from my Sony AV amp (which excels with both music and films), and my (modified) Celestion front and centre speakers, twin 10-inch active Yamaha subs and JPW surrounds, which add notable clarity and gravitas to proceedings, creates a convincing snapshot of a true cinematic experience - and in that respect, in my room and with my system, the audio (5.1) side of things is just as important as the visuals. There is no downside with that (compared with 2-channel); here is just 'works':)
With OLED it's a big step up again,
And because of how it works (Black's are pixels that are switched OFF) along with HDR, Dolby Vision and the like) make for an amazing experience.
But not everyone wants or needs that, which is OK.
Maybe they'd rather upgrade their Car, Espresso machine, or even a nice Holiday for them and the better half.
Whatever tickles you Pickle I say..
Lol, indeed, and in my limited experience so far with OLED, I'd certainly have to concur. The trouble with me, however, in terms of the last bit, is I want all that too, especially with cars and coffee! That's why I've severely modded and optimised my choice of the former, and go to the lengths I do with trying to create the best of the latter - and that also applies with food and drink, and all sorts of other things I love!
Hey, I guess - once a bon vivant, always a bon vivant;)
Marco.
P.S when are you going to install the audio system we discussed in your Alfa? If you don't do it dude, you'll lose rep points for being a purveyor of the finer things in life:eyebrows:
I think the circle of confusion applies to both audio and video.
The industry standard is of course valid, ( I used to align/calibrate TV sets), and there are some standards for loudspeakers, for eg. deviation from flat, and whether extended bandwidth or not.
My concern is with the variation in quality of material heard and seen with very good replay equipment, which is a result of less than superb originating material.
One of the best situations for validating sound quality must surely be in the early days of the BBC, when a performer could be heard live in the studio, and for an engineer to then be able to go into the cubicle and hear that live event on the monitor as a comparison.
of course its all about what an individual wants and sees as value to them, and gaz and marco think it good value so should go ahead and enjoy it.
Yups... The princess certainly applies that principle when it comes to me funding her WANTS, lol:D
Marco.
I think the circle of confusion applies to both audio and video.
Well, there's certainly no 'confusion' here on my part, I can assure you!;)
Marco.
Yups... The princess certainly applies that principle when it comes me funding her WANTS, lol:D
Marco.
want unky; now!:ner:
Lol - big screens look surprisingly different when they're wall-mounted;)
Oh, and when was the last time you were at the cinema - do you baulk at the size of the screen there too, which makes a 55" TV look like a postage stamp!:D
Marco.
As I have said previously, when at a cinema I like to sit as far away from the screen as possible. In the days of the old single screen cinemas wher you could buy a ticket for the 'circle', I would do that and sit as close to the front row and as close to the centre aisle as I could.
Nowadays with multi-screen cinemas, this is not possible, so I rarely go to the cinema. Watching a film way off-axis or too close to the screen is not a pleasant experience for me.
I used to be a member of a film club (as I enjoy foreign language films), where the films were screened in a relatively small room with a screen size to match. Even then I would sit at the back in an aisle seat.
Agree with Martin,
But as with everything its not always black and white.
As far as Callibration goes...
AV folks talk about "getting as close to the Directors original vision" with tweaking picture to a "standard'.
That's a great thing,
But there's no such a thing as a Directors "Original Vision"!
The 'Directors original vision" is a marketing term, given a lot of the time (unless your Christopher Nolan) a Director is up against others who push against him till final cut?
He doesn't always get what he wants.
And even if he does,
What if you find the colours muted, or just too much like a video game cut scene?
Like in a music recording,
Unless you have a detailed breakdown of players, setting and intent of the recording, there's just too many variables to know (or care) about.
Just enjoy it!
And if it means turning down the treble on that Oasis album...to enjoy it better.. what's wrong with that?
Exactly so. How do we know what the director sees - we don't have have his eyes.
You and I can look at a red rose, and agree by convention that the colour is 'red', but the red you see may not be the same as the red that I see.
When I used to take photographs, the colour fidelity of the film used would vary markedly depending on manufacturer. Agfachrome (CT18) was very good (i.e. flattering and over saturated) for greens, Ektachrome for blues. The best, but not perfect, IMO was Kodachrome 64. Once when I was on a lake I had been taking photo of a 'floating' village there, using Kodachrome. I ran out of film and had to reload with Ektachrome. When the results came back I was surprised to see how much bluer and more attractive the water looked compared to the scene shot on Kodachrome, which showed the water to be much greyer as it was.
As an aside, another thing this experience has reinforced for me, is the importance of cable 'dressing'/cable management!:)
Like most other folks, I'd imagine, especially those running a full AV 'home entertainment' system, behind the cabinet housing all the necessary boxes is a veritable rat's nest of cables, carrying both audio and visual signals, plus mains power - not to mention the DUST that accumulates there after time, as it's an area that's very difficult to properly clean...:doh:
So yesterday, we took the opportunity, first of all to rip out all the old coaxial cables, which were strewn around, coming from the satellite dish we used when we were with SKY (as we're using Virgin now, with their underground fibre-optic cables). Then simply unplugged everything, took all the cables we were keeping out and started again, removing any that weren't being used, then tidying and 'dressing' them all, so that mains and signal ones were kept as far apart as possible, just as I do with my 2-channel system upstairs.
Then after that, plugging everything into the 6-way Supra Lo-Rad MK3 mains block I use for this system, in the right order to optimise the performance of the most important bits of kit, sonically and visually.
Everything, apart from the TV (as it has a captive mains lead), is fitted with an audiophile-designed power cable (ones from different manufacturers), with all phono interconnects being either Mark Grant HDX1s or Klotz MC5000 with MS Audio plugs, with the mains block itself supported on Nordost Pulsar Points, in order to minimise the effect of vibration being transferred to the equipment, via the mains lead powering it acting as a conduit.
Then I switched everything back on and waited for it all to bootup/power up... Result? A slight, but noticeable improvement in picture sharpness from the Sony, *but* a very distinct improvement in sound quality, from either streaming from the RPi or playing CDs through the Panasonic Blu-ray player and Beresford Bushmeister MKII DAC. Everything now just sounds more open and clearer, with low-frequences more extended and better controlled - a free upgrade then, aside from a bit of elbow grease!:cool:
Therefore the message is folks, tidy up that rat's nest at the back of your TV or system, as the rewards will be worth it:exactly:
Marco.
want unky; now!:ner:
Lol - does unky want/need her?:D
Marco.
Lol - does unky want/need her?:D
Marco.
now!!:D
As I have said previously, when at a cinema I like to sit as far away from the screen as possible. In the days of the old single screen cinemas wher you could buy a ticket for the 'circle', I would do that and sit as close to the front row and as close to the centre aisle as I could.
Nowadays with multi-screen cinemas, this is not possible, so I rarely go to the cinema. Watching a film way off-axis or too close to the screen is not a pleasant experience for me.
I used to be a member of a film club (as I enjoy foreign language films), where the films were screened in a relatively small room with a screen size to match. Even then I would sit at the back in an aisle seat.
Lol - you're a right fussy bugger, aren't you?:D
Stuff like that just doesn't bother us to the same degree, although when booking tickets for the cinema (as we did on Saturday) we always prefer to be in the middle of the room, and somewhere on an aisle where we're effectively sat as close as possible to the middle of the screen, and far enough back for it not to be too 'imposing'.
The ends of the aisles are also good for me, having long legs, making even the 'Premier' seats uncomfortable after a while, if I can't stretch out my legs. That's also one of the reasons why we always try and book seats on planes, near the doors, as for me, with greater leg room, they're so much more comfortable!:cool:
Marco.
P.S As an aside, one of the things we used to love doing as kids, in the old days of 'stalls' or 'circles 'in cinemas, was going up to the circle and sitting right in the front row, so we could flick things at, or use our pea-shooters, on the bald-headed old men down below!:eyebrows:
now!!:D
Lol, understandable... She is rather good value in 'nurse mode' and takes her job there quite seriously;)
Marco.
Whatever happened to 'Thelma' (sorry I forgot the exact nom d'emploi of the dominatrix) who lived behind the little white door? Is she still offering her specialist services?
Lol - how *could* you forget Tabatha and her antics in the dungeon!:lol:
Marco.
Ah yes, Tabatha. How could I have forgotten? :D
Exactly so. How do we know what the director sees - we don't have have his eyes.
You and I can look at a red rose, and agree by convention that the colour is 'red', but the red you see may not be the same as the red that I see.
.
This is true but nevertheless there is a colour standard for the motion picture industry so regardless of the variation in individual's eyes the colour on the screen will be the same on any screen - assuming it is calibrated to the industry standard. There's no circle of confusion for video in the way that there is for audio.
Is this 'circle of confusion' a recognised term or something? If so, I'd never heard of it before.
Marco.
Is this 'circle of confusion' a recognised term or something? If so, I'd never heard of it before.
Marco.
its a photography term as is circle of least confusion.
summat to do with depth of field and focus.
Ah right, thanks. That's why I had no idea what Dennis was on about when he mentioned it - I just thought he was being rather cheeky!:D
Marco.
Is this 'circle of confusion' a recognised term or something? If so, I'd never heard of it before.
Marco.
I don't know anything about photography but it is a long established term in audio:
''Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and reproduction chain due to the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment. Today, the circle of confusion remains the single largest obstacle in advancing the quality of audio recording and reproduction.''
https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html#:~:text=Audio%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9C Circle%20of%20Confusion%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20term%2 0coined,the%20lack%20of%20a%20standardized%2C%20ca librated%20monitoring%20environment.
walpurgis
27-09-2021, 11:47
I wonder if reciprocity applies in digital photography.
I don't know anything about photography but it is a long established term in audio:
''Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and reproduction chain due to the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment. Today, the circle of confusion remains the single largest obstacle in advancing the quality of audio recording and reproduction.''
https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html#:~:text=Audio%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9C Circle%20of%20Confusion%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20term%2 0coined,the%20lack%20of%20a%20standardized%2C%20ca librated%20monitoring%20environment.
Thanks for that. Long established? Lol, it's a new one on me then, and I've only been in this game for 30-odd years!:D
Also, who's Floyd Toole, when he's at home? :eek:
Marco.
i dare say there are others like this you mentioned. the photography is only one ive heard of.
However, this is where we differ, dude...
Compared with some, I only have a very modest home-cinema system, in a small lounge, but despite many limitations, it works extremely well, and for me, distracts from nothing!
Hear you on that,
And it can really add to the experience.
I got to a point though (which can happen) where was focused on the kit more, (THX certification was a thing?) than just plonking my arse down and enjoying a movie, if that makes sense.
This 'moment of clarity' was compounded by several visits to my local fleapit, where I came away disappointed.
Reminded me that, you know what, I wasn't any worse off at home.
Other end of the scale to that (but part of the story) was visits to places like the big Leicester Square flix in London that reminded me that chasing THAT for the home was pointless.
As I said, a dedicated Cinema 'barn' for me would be different, but I'm not sweating it.
Like accepting no matter how good your hifi is, it ain't ever gonna be live music.
Relaxing and enjoying it, my AV setups good,
And from an audio point of view,
Several hundred Watts of clean power into big floorstanders with out of cabinet imaging that can project movies effects behind you (feels that way!) is more than enough for this Lad.
Been there done that, I've gone round the doors and got to what works for me.
:thumbsup:
As I said, I was watching the film 1917 last night, in Dolby Vision, and the sheer quality of the visuals (which you'll also be used to, most likely to an even higher standard with your OLED) was honestly nothing short of breathtaking, not just in terms of fine details, which are normally blurred to the status of indistinctness on non-OLED TVs, but simply how strikingly lifelike the scenes were that were unfolding in front of me, such that I felt I could 'jump in' and be part of it, in turn creating the most immersive viewing experience I've ever had at home from movies.
Honestly folks, the difference a quality OLED screen makes, given an appropriately good hi-def signal, is NOT subtle - this is a veritable game changer!:eek::exactly:
The above, coupled with the superb sound quality from my Sony AV amp (which excels with both music and films), and my (modified) Celestion front and centre The trouble with me, however, in terms of the last bit, is I want all that too, especially with cars and coffee! That's why I've severely modded and optimised my choice of the former, and go to the lengths I do with trying to create the best of the latter - and that also applies with food and drink, and all sorts of other things I love!
Hey, I guess - once a bon vivant, always a bon vivant;)
Marco.
P.S when are you going to install the audio system we discussed in your Alfa? If you don't do it dude, you'll lose rep points as being a purveyor of the finer things in life:eyebrows:
Its on the cards Marco, couple of Months out.
And going in 'full Bhuna' too, rather do without, wait n save up to do it right than go half measure.
Joining the Espresso machine club first,
kettles on the fritz and decided I need some good coffee in my life. :D
My next Project to get my teeth into.
Hear you on that,
And it can really add to the experience.
I got to a point though (which can happen) where was focused on the kit more, (THX certification was a thing?) than just plonking my arse down and enjoying a movie, if that makes sense.
This 'moment of clarity' was compounded by several visits to my local fleapit, where I came away disappointed.
Reminded me that, you know what, I wasn't any worse off at home.
Other end of the scale to that (but part of the story) was visits to places like the big Leicester Square flix in London that reminded me that chasing THAT for the home was pointless.
As I said, a dedicated Cinema 'barn' for me would be different, but I'm not sweating it.
Like accepting no matter how good your hifi is, it ain't ever gonna be live music.
Relaxing and enjoying it, my AV setups good,
And from an audio point of view,
Several hundred Watts of clean power into big floorstanders with out of cabinet imaging that can project movies effects behind you (feels that way!) is more than enough for this Lad.
Been there done that, I've gone round the doors and got to what works for me.
Yeah sure, I get you on that. Firstly, I've long since lost the tendency to focus on the kit, when it comes either to hi-fi or movies, so I guess that I got to the happy place you're in now a bit sooner:)
Secondly, I understand what you mean about being somewhat underwhelmed by the experience at the 'local flea pit'. That was the case on Saturday when we went to see The Many Saints of Newark (Sopranos prequel, starring Michael Gandolfini - have you seen it yet? It's awesome), especially now as I've got a pretty decent reference point for 5.1 'done well' at home!
It's still a good night out for us, though - curry and a few drinkies beforehand (or afterwards), and a good film. No matter how good your home-cinema system is, you can't replicate that experience, lol!
However, unlike you, I use places such as Leicester Square as my *inspiration* to strive for the closest experience to that as possible at home, even if it's not very lol, just as I would with my hi-fi system if I heard someone else's and it made me think that doing something similar to mine would be worthwhile. That's essentially how I got into big Tannoys,
Thirdly, the difference between us, and our respective home-cinema systems, is that mine is in a separate room from my 2-channel one, where different rules apply. One room is maxed out (within reason) for movies, and the other being a dedicated listening room, is maxed out for music/sound quality, without any 'reason' whatsoever!:lol: I.e. no concessions to looks or 'WAF'.
Therefore that also means that my goals, in terms of optimising either system, don't clash, especially when it comes to amps. I mean, there's no way I'd be using my Copper amp in a home-cinema system, so that's where the Sony comes in. Plus it means that upstairs I can keep the 2-channel system nice and simple, to the point that SQ is also optimised. without entertaining any unnecessary 'complication', in order to accommodate the movie side.
Know what I mean, jelly bean?
Hear ya on the car system (and espresso thing, lol). Again, if I can assist in either area, especially the former, as I know more about that, then just give me a shout!:cool:
Marco.
Also, who's Floyd Toole, when he's at home? :eek:
So who's this Toole dude - anyone?
I'm just not into that side of things ('famous personalities') in audio, or whatever, as my full focus, since day 1 of being into high-end hi-fi, was building a system that sounded good, using a solely 'ears first' subjective process.
I have never 'studied' the subject in any great depth, simply learned from practical experience, so anything relating to the former will have passed me by, and be of no real interest:)
Marco.
Floyd Toole: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092
So who's this Toole dude - anyone?
I'm just not into that side of things ('famous personalities') in audio, or whatever, as my full focus, since day 1 of being into high-end hi-fi, was building a system that sounded good, using a solely 'ears first' subjective process. I have never 'studied' the subject in any great depth, simply learned from practical experience, so anything relating to the former will have passed me by, and be of no real interest:)
Marco.
Just google you will get a load of info on him.
Ah ok, cheers for that. I'll have a look, but as I said, it's not really something that interests me, as I've always done my own thing with audio, rather than study anything. I just don't apply academic principles to my hi-fi interests:)
Marco.
Just google you will get a load of info on him.
As you will if you type in Marco's full name. ;)
Lol - no, I don't think I'm terribly famous!
Marco.
Lol - no, I don't think I'm terribly famous!
Marco.
Maybe so, but you're there.
In terms of what, lol?
Marco.
In terms of what, lol?
Marco.
In terms of getting some information on you,
Thirdly, the difference between us, and our respective home-cinema systems, is that mine is in a separate room from my 2-channel one, where different rules apply. One room is maxed out (within reason) for movies, and the other being a dedicated listening room, is maxed out for music/sound quality, without any 'reason' whatsoever!:lol: I.e. no concessions to looks or 'WAF'.
Therefore that also means that my goals, in terms of optimising either system, don't clash, especially when it comes to amps. I mean, there's no way I'd be using my Copper amp in a home-cinema system, so that's where the Sony comes in. Plus it means that upstairs I can keep the 2-channel system nice and simple, to the point that SQ is also optimised. without entertaining any unnecessary 'complication', in order to accommodate the movie side.
Know what I mean, jelly bean?
Can do both "in one" with zero compromise on quality, on either side.
If you do it right.
Just sayin' M'lud, (for the benefit of the Tape) https://theartofsound.net/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Different strokes as you say, and that's never a bad thing.
:cool:
In terms of getting some information on you,
Lol - information about what? What exactly have you been searching for or found, daftee - my secret past as a hitman for the mafia?:D
Marco.
In terms of getting some information on you,
https://media3.giphy.com/media/kN5jXXf6SeGoo/200.webp?cid=ecf05e479vfxljhcf1kmkd71kowvczaasjlj7 l25zqop3wj4&rid=200.webp&ct=g
:)
Can do both "in one" with zero compromise on quality, on either side.
If you do it right.
Just sayin' M'lud, (for the benefit of the Tape) https://theartofsound.net/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Different strokes as you say, and that's never a bad thing.
:cool:
Lol - not if you like valve amps and consider them as superior than SS, for music duties, but the other way round for movies!:ner:;)
By that I mean in comparison with using a dedicated AV amp. I know you love 2-channel with movies, and that's cool, but for me (at least from my experience so far) 5.1 is best, and I want to max that out in a different room and system.
Marco.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/kN5jXXf6SeGoo/200.webp?cid=ecf05e479vfxljhcf1kmkd71kowvczaasjlj7 l25zqop3wj4&rid=200.webp&ct=g
:)
:lolsign:
You're a bad boy!
Marco.
Tele will be getting hung on Friday - way hey!:carrot:
Means I can get the centre speaker off the floor and onto the cabinet where it was before, and press it into action for even better results with movies!
Have to say though, since I had these Celestion 15s fully recapped (original electrolytics not just bypassed now, but replaced with quality polys of the same value), and rewired them with Jantzen cable, ripping out the horrid 'bell wire' inside (plus fitted Cardas solid copper binding posts, as the originals were simply shocking), they really sound stunning, once again showing that mixing the BEST of old and new worlds, in this case a 1968 speaker design with today's cables and components, can be a match made in heaven...
Seems to work rather nicely, that's for sure. I'd certainly put these up against anything of a similar size from the likes of Spendor or Harbeth, costing rather more than I've paid, even factoring in the cost of the mods, and expect them to ably hold their own!:)
Marco.
Spendor and Harbeth are perhaps highly regarded, and I'm sure that Alan Shaw would be horrified, even by your comparison.
Are your 15s, the biggest of the range that used a passive, I remember them fondly from in the early 70s.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/l3vR6aasfs0Ae3qdG/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47yxaadhir4ccevw6b2ubi3wlb5ib0 qbyhi6tg54nw&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
:thumbsup:
Tele will be getting hung on Friday - way hey!:carrot:
Means I can get the centre speaker off the floor and onto the cabinet where it was before, and press it into action for even better results with movies!
Have to say though, since I had these Celestion 15s fully recapped (original electrolytics not just bypassed now, but replaced with quality polys of the same value), and rewired them with Jantzen cable, ripping out the horrid 'bell wire' inside (plus fitted Cardas solid copper binding posts, as the originals were simply shocking), they really sound stunning, once again showing that mixing the BEST of old and new worlds, in this case a 1968 speaker design with today's cables and components, can be a match made in heaven...
Seems to work rather nicely, that's for sure. I'd certainly put these up against anything of a similar size from the likes of Spendor or Harbeth, costing rather more than I've paid, even factoring in the cost of the mods, and expect them to ably hold their own!:)
Marco.
Spendor and Harbeth are perhaps highly regarded, and I'm sure that Alan Shaw would be horrified, even by your comparison.
Are your 15s, the biggest of the range that used a passive, I remember them fondly from in the early 70s.
Lol - I'm sure he would be horrified!:D But, I suspect more 'horrified' at how good they sounded, considering their age;)
Here they are, Dennis, in situ in my lounge (old pics before I got the new TV), and in pretty good condition for 53-year old speakers:
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/VRxs64.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/z2kZVa.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/sNOV4o.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/jf20JO.jpg
With grilles off (not very pretty lol, but purposeful):
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/MY5hT7.jpg
As you can see, they use the well-regarded HF1300 tweeters, found in many of Spendor's classic standmount designs, and share a similar 'BBC studio monitor' sound, but done REALLY well, and with the ABRs, have a bit more 'heft' in the bass than Spendor (or Harbeth's) similar sized models.
The Jupiter Copper-Foil, Paper and Wax caps that have been fitted raised the bar significantly though (see link below), and showed what the excellent drive units were capable of, by really opening things up and releasing their latent sonic potential.
Jupiter capacitors: https://www.hificollective.co.uk/components/jupiter_copper_foil_in_wax.html
The 15s cost me £80 on Ebay, and I've spent around £300 modding them (as outlined), so for under £400 I've got a pair of speakers that I'd happily compare with anything similar today, up to around £2k. Plus, augmented by the twin Yamaha 10-inch active subs (hidden out of view), combine to give palpable weight and gravitas to low-frequency movie sound effects.
Here's my view of how they compared with the later 15XRs (which I also had, and modded, one of which, as you'll notice from the pics above, I now use as a centre speaker): https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?70424-The-Marco-boy-main-system-as-of-August-2020&p=1225315#post1225315
Once again demonstrating that things don't always get better, the newer they are!;)
Marco.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/l3vR6aasfs0Ae3qdG/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47yxaadhir4ccevw6b2ubi3wlb5ib0 qbyhi6tg54nw&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
:thumbsup:
Haha - aye, defo!
Marco.
No thoughts, Dennis, on my earlier post (and pics)?:)
Marco.
No thoughts, Dennis, on my earlier post (and pics)?:)
Marco.
Yes, and of the same heritage I guess, the ones I had in mind were the 66s, which very much impressed me, but I think they do not use the 1300. I loved that 1300, derived I think from some sort of comms speaker in a tank.
What's a comms speaker in a tank?:hmm:
But yes, the 66s were the big boys. Had those too, and indeed demonstrated them as part of an AoS system at a show in Scalford Hall hotel in 2011:
https://youtu.be/odlrzwQekoM
Thomas Dolby's 'Dissidents' is the music playing.
Most of the electronics were mine, modded Technics turntable (further modified since), Croft preamp and Copper valve amp. The system received rave reviews!
And no, the 66s didn't use the HF-1300, but instead a super-tweeter in conjunction with the equally well-regarded MF500 mid/top unit. They sounded sublime, but in the end I didn't have enough room to house two huge sets of speakers, so kept my Tannoys, as ultimately I preferred those.
Marco.
walpurgis
29-09-2021, 07:21
I loved that 1300, derived I think from some sort of comms speaker in a tank.
I know what you're getting at. There was some such story about the origins of the HF1300, can't remember the details though and I'm too lazy to spend ages googling :).
walpurgis
29-09-2021, 07:30
I do have some pairs of various versions of the HF1300 tucked away for a rainy day. I regard the HF1300 as the most revealing moving coil tweeter I've heard, across its intended frequency band. The detail, transient response and perceived depth and ambience seem second to none to me, even if the tonality can appear a touch hard depending on implementation.
I agree with all of that, Geoff. It's probably the best tweeter I've heard for the portrayal of natural/realistic high-frequency detail and texture, along with modern units from Focal.
It's only 'hard' when sub-optimally matched, IME.
Marco.
@Dennis:
What's a comms speaker in a tank?:hmm:
:popcorn::wave:
Or anyone?
Marco.
walpurgis
29-09-2021, 17:28
Communications device in a military vehicle. Probably a mic.
yeah communication speakers in tanks etc.. 3k up so should stand out from the noise of a tank etc. suppose its possible but not heard of it. most tmk wore cans so maybe as geoff says using it a a mic and headphones system. old tanks were noisy places
Communications device in a military vehicle. Probably a mic.
Ah, THAT kind of tank! :doh:
Marco.
yeah communication speakers in tanks etc.. 3k up so should stand out from the noise of a tank etc. suppose its possible but not heard of it. most tmk wore cans so maybe as geoff says using it a a mic and headphones system. old tanks were noisy places
Interesting... Would be good to know the history:)
Marco.
But yes, the 66s were the big boys. Had those too, and indeed demonstrated them as part of an AoS system at a show in Scalford Hall hotel in 2011:
Holy crap, was that really 10 years ago!? They were very good I do remember, when I could get away from the “Cheap as Chips” room! That show and everything about it (including the curry but excluding the hangover!) was an absolutely fabulous weekend.
I do have some pairs of various versions of the HF1300 tucked away for a rainy day. I regard the HF1300 as the most revealing moving coil tweeter I've heard, across its intended frequency band. The detail, transient response and perceived depth and ambience seem second to none to me, even if the tonality can appear a touch hard depending on implementation.
I agree too, especially in combination with the Coles 4001G (?) “super tweeter”, as deployed in my Spendor SP1’s, and B&W DM1’s. Must dig the latter out again, if I can remember where they are!
Holy crap, was that really 10 years ago!? They were very good I do remember, when I could get away from the “Cheap as Chips” room! That show and everything about it (including the curry but excluding the hangover!) was an absolutely fabulous weekend.
Lol - was that the same show as the legendary 'Cheap as Chips' room? That one certainly ruffled a few feathers, eh mate?:D;)
Marco.
Lol - was that the same show as the legendary 'Cheap as Chips' room? That one certainly ruffled a few feathers, eh mate?:D;)
Marco.
Yes i think it was, and we certainly did ruffle a few feathers! Certainly showed that to get a decent hi-fi you don’t have to spend very much if you’re canny. I still remember to this day the guy that told me he had spent £50k on his system and it didn’t sound as good as the then playing £100 system! That’s not to say that a £50k system couldn’t sound stunning, but a lesson for me and many others that synergy and system matching with a few “under the radar” components can produce very good results. Happy days!
I think it was used as a speaker of some sort in a tank, and they stopped making it because the tool for moulding the conical polyamide cone became over worn. One of the greatest revelations for me was at the BBC hearing the then LS 3/4 and 5/5 that used it.
My enthusiasm for tinkering has diminished, and I have not built an amplifier for decades, mainly because the then economic advantage for a high quality unit has diminished. Most of my more recent work has been on loudspeakers, in fact since '85 that has been so. Mainly I have done rebuilds to improve on original designs, but what becomes apparent is the limitations of the drivers. They also have much better measuring equipment professionally.
Interesting, Dennis... Those Celestion drive units from 'back in the day' were really top-notch:)
Like you say, in general the quality of such available now is sadly lacking.
Marco.
No, there's plenty of very good drive units around now, certainly better than in the 1980s or earlier. They just don't tend to get used in commercial speakers as they're too expensive. An extra tenner for a drive unit is another £100 or £200 on the retail price.
Is there though, without paying megabucks? I'd defer to Dennis' experience here as he builds stuff.
As you know, I rate Focal, but what's out there these days that's as good as or better than the likes of the aforementioned Celestion midrange and tweeter units, and in that I'd also include the KEF T27, used in the LS3/5a, at the price you can currently pick those up for?
I dunno, as I don't build stuff. However, there's a reason I generally prefer the voicing of the best vintage speakers, particularly through the presence range and top end, and that's mostly to do with the drivers!;)
Many, but not all, modern designs sound a little etched/brightly lit, and overall tonally 'bleached', to my ears, in comparison, and simply not as real.
Marco.
Is there though, without paying megabucks? I'd defer to Dennis' experience here as he builds stuff.
.
For DIY yes they are affordable, but for commercial speakers, no - not unless the speaker is retailing in the multiple thousands.
I built my last speaker back in 1995 but even then there was a big difference between the drivers that cost a tenner that get used in commercial designs, and those in the £40 range.
I hear you about vintage speakers, at least some of them. But I would say for every one that has stood the test of time there are two that sound muffled and dull by modern standards.
For DIY yes they are affordable, but for commercial speakers, no - not unless the speaker is retailing in the multiple thousands.
Yes, but it's not just about being affordable; it's about being as GOOD, sonically. So what modern tweeters, used by DIYers today, are as good, sonically, as the likes of an HF1300, or which midrange units are as good as, or better, than an MF500, and available at the same price or less?
I hear you about vintage speakers, at least some of them. But I would say for every one that has stood the test of time there are two that sound muffled and dull by modern standards.
Yes, I agree. Vintage speakers aren't any more of a 'magic bullet' than any other examples of vintage gear.
However, I'm only talking about the very BEST speakers in comparison with what's made today. Plus, and I know this now from considerable experience, the 'dull and muffled' effect you describe can often be eradicated, or certainly radically reduced, by upgrades to crossover caps and resistors.
Often, that's the only way to hear what vintage speakers are truly capable of, as one of the areas where technology has created MASSIVE improvements in audio, is in the design of electrical components and other things such as cables, plugs and terminals, which are a *completely* different animal from what was used 40 or 50 years ago.
That's why marrying the best of old and new can often provide superb results, and deliver the highest SPPV!:)
Marco.
walpurgis
30-09-2021, 09:51
New technology in products tends to be aimed at cheapness of production. Things are generally built down to a price, not up to a specification. The older speaker drivers tended to be the best the maker could design at the time, that largely ceased to be generations ago.
New new technology in products tends to be aimed at cheapness of production. Things are generally built down to a price, not up to a specification. The older speaker drivers tended to be the best the maker could design at the time, that largely ceased to be generations ago.
Couldn't agree more, mate - and the bit in bold is a sad and simple fact, unless you pay PLENTY!
And you can certainly here the sonic results when listening to many modern speakers, certainly under £3-4k.
Marco.
walpurgis
30-09-2021, 10:16
I prefer using drivers that don't employ Ferrofluid, partly the reason for my liking for vintage units.
Is there though, without paying megabucks? I'd defer to Dennis' experience here as he builds stuff.
As you know, I rate Focal, but what's out there these days that's as good as or better than the likes of the aforementioned Celestion midrange and tweeter units, and in that I'd also include the KEF T27, used in the LS3/5a, at the price you can currently pick those up for?
I dunno, as I don't build stuff. However, there's a reason I generally prefer the voicing of the best vintage speakers, particularly through the presence range and top end, and that's mostly to do with the drivers!;)
Many, but not all, modern designs sound a little etched/brightly lit, and overall tonally 'bleached', to my ears, in comparison, and simply not as real.
Marco.
A real problem is our own changes in auditory perception. About 17 years ago I was given a CD of Electric Music For the Mind and Body, Country Joe, and on playing was disappointed by one part using an organ, my thinking that it had been remastered and the remasterer did not understand the original artistic intention.
I now think that it was rather because of my top loss; on Small Town Boy, Br. Beat for example, much of the clever syncopated high hat tympany has gone now, and on speakers flat to 50k.
The other factor is our imprinting.
It follows that any manufacturer is closely looking at what else is available in the market, and if they are outliers it must be because they have produced something 'odd', or much better than what is available. Thus there tends to be a 'consensus' in the sound which is 'correct' at any given time; there is a fashion/trend in most things.
When our hearing is good we are maximally receptive to what is around, and if we are enthusiasts we embrace much listening to lots of gear, so we, at a more impressionable time, become imprinted to these(this) as a reference.
So we are now comparing new technology with perhaps wiser minds, (and maybe a jaded view of humanity), with our youthful enthusiastic perception of the older technology with less experienced, and perhaps more naive minds.
Hard to be objective about these changes, and to what they are attributable.
I also do not like the use of ferrofluid.
Yes, but it's not just about being affordable; it's about being as GOOD, sonically. So what modern tweeters, used by DIYers today, are as good, sonically, as the likes of an HF1300, or which midrange units are as good as, or better, than an MF500, and available at the same price or less?
.
depends how you classify good. Low distortion, flat FR. extent of FR, power handling? I suspect there are a lot of modern tweeters better than the HF1300 in all those respects.
On the other hand if someone just 'likes the sound' of the HF1300 that's a different matter.
You can still buy modern speakers that are rubbish so I suppose nothing has changed in that respect.
I think this is spot on and has a huge bearing on matters:
It follows that any manufacturer is closely looking at what else is available in the market, and if they are outliers it must be because they have produced something 'odd', or much better than what is available. Thus there tends to be a 'consensus' in the sound which is 'correct' at any given time; there is a fashion/trend in most things.
..and indeed have said so before. Essentially, someone's decided, for whatever reason, that this is how the majority of today's speakers are to be 'voiced', therefore it's no accident that many of the new ones I hear simply don't sound right, i.e. reproduce a sound that I consider as being a lifelike representation of human voices and instruments.
When our hearing is good we are maximally receptive to what is around, and if we are enthusiasts we embrace much listening to lots of gear, so we, at a more impressionable time, become imprinted to these(this) as a reference.
Good point, and yes I agree. My hearing is still very good, certainly for someone in their 50s, and can often hear things happening around me that others can't or struggle to do to the same degree. As indeed is my eyesight (don't yet require glasses), so in my circumstances my preferences with sound have little to do with any major changes in my hearing.
Therefore, in terms of your latter point above, I've pretty much always liked the same type of sound from day one of getting into high-end audio, and so continue to use that as a reference today.
So we are now comparing new technology with perhaps wiser minds, (and maybe a jaded view of humanity), with our youthful enthusiastic perception of the older technology with less experienced, and perhaps more naive minds.
Yes, I also agree with that. At one time I was also sucked into the notion that audio equipment or speakers always became better, as years went on, and that newest was best. Now I know for a fact that isn't true - and indeed is often the other way round!
Some folks though refuse to entertain that notion, for all sorts of reasons, almost as if they *must* consider new technology as always offering advancements, as the opposite simply won't compute.
Marco.
depends how you classify good. Low distortion, flat FR. extent of FR, power handling? I suspect there are a lot of modern tweeters better than the HF1300 in all those respects.
As I've said to Dennis, whatever, to my ears, makes human voices and instruments sound as real, as any given recording allows.
I'm not chasing a particular 'sound'; I just like to listen to music and be able to think 'Yes, that sounds like a piano', or whatever, or consider that a singer's voice appears as convincing and lifelike, as opposed to a processed cardboard cut-out of such.
Of course it's all subjective, but that's what I classify as 'good'. The other things you mention for me may help contribute towards that goal, but don't automatically guarantee a good sound, or certainly what I consider as such, when what I'm listening to is supposed to be an audiophile recording that's designed to achieve maximum fidelity.
You can still buy modern speakers that are rubbish so I suppose nothing has changed in that respect.
And plenty of them... There really hasn't been anywhere near the level of progress made today, in all areas of audio, as some may think!
Marco.
When it comes to speakers I think that there have been some quite large advances in both materials technology and in the research, it just doesn't get employed in a lot of speakers due to cost. And a lot of very expensive speakers that do employ it tend to be quite odd performers for other, albeit deliberate, reasons.
The research shows that 75% of people prefer a speaker with flat on axis response and a symmetrical off-axis response. But that leaves 1 in 4 people wanting something different. Which is a big market.
For me there is only one reference point - that of live un-amplified music, such as orchestral symphonies or small-scale string ensembles and solo performers.
If my system can provide me with illusion of an un-amplified concert, then that is all I ask.
To hell with fashions in sound: if the younger generation are content with their iPhone + earbuds, and in using them ultimately compromise their hearing, with speaker manufacturers having to tailor the sound of their speakers to satisfy these new consumers, then I'm not going to go along with the trend.
Went out shopping for a food processor today. Could find what we wanted, but whilst we were in the store I had a look at some of the latest TVs.
Looked at a Sony 55" OLED 8K telly - never mind it was set to 'super dooper gee whizz bang' shop display mode, the picture detail was absolutely jaw dropping! Shame there is virtually no 8K source material around (oh and the set cost about £4K).
Also 55" is becoming old hat - 80" is the size to go for now; if you have the room.
Pigmy Pony
30-09-2021, 17:49
Went out shopping for a food processor today. Could find what we wanted, but whilst we were in the store I had a look at some of the latest TVs.
Looked at a Sony 55" OLED 8K telly - never mind it was set to 'super dooper gee whizz bang' shop display mode, the picture detail was absolutely jaw dropping! Shame there is virtually no 8K source material around (oh and the set cost about £4K).
Also 55" is becoming old hat - 80" is the size to go for now; if you have the room.
Recently I saw one of those old Jags (as driven by Inspector Morse), and I couldn't believe how tiny it looked! Everything is getting bigger - cars, TVs, smartphones, people, towns/cities, cup sizes*, but the world is still the same size. Surely this can't continue?
*Not all bad then :)
Recently I saw one of those old Jags (as driven by Inspector Morse), and I couldn't believe how tiny it looked! Everything is getting bigger - cars, TVs, smartphones, people, towns/cities, cup sizes*, but the world is still the same size. Surely this can't continue?
*Not all bad then :)
My father used to drive one of those (actually it was a Daimler V8, but looked very similar). The only thing that was small about it was the MPG!
The Jags/Daimlers looked small in comparison because they were shallow (i.e. not very tall).
Went out shopping for a food processor today. Could find what we wanted, but whilst we were in the store I had a look at some of the latest TVs.
Looked at a Sony 55" OLED 8K telly - never mind it was set to 'super dooper gee whizz bang' shop display mode, the picture detail was absolutely jaw dropping! Shame there is virtually no 8K source material around (oh and the set cost about £4K).
Nice one... Trust me though, you'd feel exactly the same if you saw the picture I'm getting here with this new (merely 4k, lol) Sony, compared with what you're getting from your LG!;)
Marco.
When it comes to speakers I think that there have been some quite large advances in both materials technology and in the research, it just doesn't get employed in a lot of speakers due to cost. And a lot of very expensive speakers that do employ it tend to be quite odd performers for other, albeit deliberate, reasons.
Such as?:)
I don't disagree with your first statement, but what about all the speakers most folk can afford? Some of those 'large advances in materials technology' should be trickling down to make them good too, instead of merely mediocre, or worse.
Plus, as we've discussed before, I've heard a couple of notable examples of modern 'very expensive' speakers recently, such as the Magicos and Tannoy Kingdom Royals, and both were hugely disappointing, regardless of how advanced the materials they used were, when both should've blew me away, so what does that tell you?
Back in the day, when the speakers I use now were new (Celestions or Tannoys), there was no shortage of budget, mid-priced or even (affordably expensive, as in not 'house price') great sounding speakers to choose from, so where has it gone wrong?
Marco.
For me there is only one reference point - that of live un-amplified music, such as orchestral symphonies or small-scale string ensembles and solo performers.
If my system can provide me with illusion of an un-amplified concert, then that is all I ask.
Me too, although as I'm also into rock music, some of it pretty heavy, I like to recreate some of the visceral intensity and scale of an amplified rock gig, which I get with the Tannoys upstairs, as those big 15" drivers, in conjunction with the Copper amp, can really shift air!:fingers::hairmetal:
To hell with fashions in sound: if the younger generation are content with their iPhone + earbuds, and in using them ultimately compromise their hearing, with speaker manufacturers having to tailor the sound of their speakers to satisfy these new consumers, then I'm not going to go along with the trend.
Yup, I've always done my own thing with hi-fi and generally bucked trends. Trends are for sheep-like, lazy-arsed idiots, devoid of their own ideas!
However, I would say in terms of youngsters today that not all of them are as you describe. I've had a few round here, most recently a couple of Del's students and also some of her younger girlfriends in their 20s, and having heard both of my systems, they can certainly appreciate a good sound!:cool:
Marco.
For me there is only one reference point - that of live un-amplified music, such as orchestral symphonies or small-scale string ensembles and solo performers.
If my system can provide me with illusion of an un-amplified concert, then that is all I ask.
To hell with fashions in sound: if the younger generation are content with their iPhone + earbuds, and in using them ultimately compromise their hearing, with speaker manufacturers having to tailor the sound of their speakers to satisfy these new consumers, then I'm not going to go along with the trend.
Agree with all you say, but the particular problem I have is with the spoken word. Back in my BBC days they employed announcers who spoke received pronunciation, especially for World Service where clarity for non English speakers was important. The studios were lined with very expensive wooden absorbent and care was taken with good mics, STC 4003, to get the distances right.
Fashions in sound are a result IMO of what seems to be the 'new truth'; remember IBs, then passives, and now ports. Aluminium fascia's, then champagne, then black.
Now voices are all over the place, just try listening to Woman's Hour, often nothing above 1k, inarticulate idiots with nothing of much value to say, hence a lack of clarity allows them not to be held to account for what they say.
So in the absence of a reference I am trying another set of speakers as a comparison. 29Hz to 18kHz +/- 0.5 dB is surely good enough.
Such as?:)
I don't disagree with your first statement, but what about all the speakers most folk can afford? Some of those 'large advances in materials technology' should be trickling down to make them good too, instead of merely mediocre, or worse.
Plus, as we've discussed before, I've heard a couple of notable examples of modern 'very expensive' speakers recently, such as the Magicos and Tannoy Kingdom Royals, and both were hugely disappointing, regardless of how advanced the materials they used were, when both should've blew me away, so what does that tell you?
Back in the day, when the speakers I use now were new (Celestions or Tannoys), there was no shortage of budget, mid-priced or even (affordably expensive, as in not 'house price') great sounding speakers to choose from, so where has it gone wrong?
Marco.
I think the now abundance of available Heils is a good example, now that the 25 years have gone, and many are very good; I am a great fan, even of the original.
Don't you have a Hoola hoop and drive a C5 then?
Nice one... Trust me though, you'd feel exactly the same if you saw the picture I'm getting here with this new (merely 4k, lol) Sony, compared with what you're getting from your LG!;)
Marco.
I doubt it. There were OLED 4K TVs by most of the main manufacturers on show, and none of them came close to the detail displayed by the 8K set. It was one of the few examples of the much cliché'd "night and day difference", that actually held true.
Pigmy Pony
01-10-2021, 06:03
However, I would say in terms of youngsters today that not all of them are as you describe. I've had a few round here, most recently a couple of Del's students and also some of her younger girlfriends in their 20s, and having heard both of my systems, they can certainly appreciate a good sound!:cool:
Marco.
I can well believe that these young visitors made appreciative sounds about your set ups, but how many have asked you how they can get that sort of sound in their own homes? And are actively doing something about it? I'm not saying they can't recognise good sound when they hear it, just that they're really not that bothered.
'Music on the move' is where it's at for most kids, and this demand is fulfilled by smartphones, iPods etc, in conjunction with streaming services. And the sound they get is probably tailored for "whizz-bang listen to this" tunes. Values such as depth, imaging and soundstage mean nothing when walking to the bus stop.
Also for younger people, space tends to be in short supply (either still living at home or in a flat or starter home), so omly space for their clothes, iPad and X-Box. No way are they going to make room for speakers that remind them of grandma's chest of drawers :eek:
Always room for a big telly though :)
I think the now abundance of available Heils is a good example, now that the 25 years have gone, and many are very good; I am a great fan, even of the original.
Sorry, what are "Heils"? Never heard of them... The C5 was comically bad, lol!
Marco.
I doubt it. There were OLED 4K TVs by most of the main manufacturers on show, and none of them came close to the detail displayed by the 8K set. It was one of the few examples of the much cliché'd "night and day difference", that actually held true.
I meant your TV in comparison with a 4K OLED, not a 4K OLED in comparison with an 8K one. I'm presuming that your current LG isn't an OLED...
Trust me, if not, the difference with the former will be similarly big!
Marco.
I can well believe that these young visitors made appreciative sounds about your set ups, but how many have asked you how they can get that sort of sound in their own homes? And are actively doing something about it? I'm not saying they can't recognise good sound when they hear it, just that they're really not that bothered.
'Music on the move' is where it's at for most kids, and this demand is fulfilled by smartphones, iPods etc, in conjunction with streaming services. And the sound they get is probably tailored for "whizz-bang listen to this" tunes. Values such as depth, imaging and soundstage mean nothing when walking to the bus stop.
Also for younger people, space tends to be in short supply (either still living at home or in a flat or starter home), so omly space for their clothes, iPad and X-Box. No way are they going to make room for speakers that remind them of grandma's chest of drawers :eek:
Always room for a big telly though :)
All good and valid points, Piggurs. I guess the closest I've come to that is convincing a couple of them to invest in a quality (hi-fi branded) portable music player and Sennheiser headphones, at a combined cost of £800, to replace their iPhone and cheap ear buds as a music source - prompted by their experience at mine and showing them what was possible.. One of them was also going to buy a turntable.
So that wasn't bad, but you're right, standalone 2-channel home audio systems, for the young, aren't really a thing, for all the reasons you say. The closest to that, because, as you say, a big TV will always be desired, would be to incorporate their music listening/streaming with their movie viewing [effectively creating a 'home entertainment system'], and possibly using some decent external speakers with that, a bit like I do in the lounge system.
My main point though was that, it's not about youngers signing up to a trend of loudspeakers being 'voiced' a specific way, which was muted earlier (and as I said I believe said voicing happens), and by default them all wanting THAT type of sound, (or the artificially 'pumped up' drone of cheap earbuds). Clearly, as I've outlined, they can easily appreciate something much better, and will spend the money to get it, as good sound is important to them. Or at least it is for those who care enough about such to invest in it (and can afford it), but in that respect they're no different from older people, as not everyone is an audio enthusiast, for portable music-listening or otherwise.
The challenge therefore, if we're to keep quality 2-channel hi-fi alive in future, is to convince youngsters (give them a reason) to invest in such systems when they have the space to accommodate them - and very few, if any, of our traditional hi-fi dealerships, mainly run by middle-aged men, or older, have a clue how to go about that, as they're all still living in the past!
Marco.
walpurgis
01-10-2021, 06:38
Sorry, what are "Heils"? Never heard of them...
Marco.
Air Motion Transformer speaker drive units, developed by Dr Oskar Heil.
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/ess_amt_e.html
The sound quality can be quite remarkable.
Such as?:)
I don't disagree with your first statement, but what about all the speakers most folk can afford? Some of those 'large advances in materials technology' should be trickling down to make them good too, instead of merely mediocre, or worse.
Plus, as we've discussed before, I've heard a couple of notable examples of modern 'very expensive' speakers recently, such as the Magicos and Tannoy Kingdom Royals, and both were hugely disappointing, regardless of how advanced the materials they used were, when both should've blew me away, so what does that tell you?
Back in the day, when the speakers I use now were new (Celestions or Tannoys), there was no shortage of budget, mid-priced or even (affordably expensive, as in not 'house price') great sounding speakers to choose from, so where has it gone wrong?
Marco.
I think there are excellent speakers at any price-point. I don't think that has changed. You can't just pick two you didn't personally like as examples, there are probably 500 to a 1000 choices in that price range.
Also I don't know why everyone keeps going on about young people not having the space for a proper hi-fi. You can easily fit a proper system into a box room. I did for years.
I think the real problem is that these youngsters like to pretend they are executives on £100K a year so they live flash lifestyles, get into debt, and then have no money for anything. Seen it happen.
I think there are excellent speakers at any price-point. I don't think that has changed. You can't just pick two you didn't personally like as examples, there are probably 500 to a 1000 choices in that price range.
Well, I've yet to hear many, which is why I've stopped going to hi-fi shows! There's simply no point, if almost every room you go into, you think the sound of, not just the speakers, but the systems as a whole, is poor or merely mediocre.
The last Bristol show I went to, which caters more for mainstream stuff, highlighted that fact after, trust me, I had listened to a plethora of £1000-£2000 systems/speakers and under - and that wasn't the case back in the 80s and 90s when such shows would produce regular 'wow' moments.
The two examples of 'very expensive speakers' I've highlighted, which didn't do it for me, are only two of many. I've heard plenty more that were very disappointing, considering the huge cost. I'm sure I'm not alone here either in thinking that.
Marco.
Also I don't know why everyone keeps going on about young people not having the space for a proper hi-fi. You can easily fit a proper system into a box room. I did for years.
I think the real problem is that these youngsters like to pretend they are executives on £100K a year so they live flash lifestyles, get into debt, and then have no money for anything. Seen it happen.
Nah, it just doesn't fit with their lifestyle. For them, listening to music is something mostly done on the move, or at least with the minimum 'paraphernalia' required possible. I've talked to enough of them about it, when the subject comes up (which it often does), as has Del, as she deals with teenagers on a daily basis.
She's even shown them pictures of my system on AoS, for those who were curious, as a few of them are into Technics T/Ts, with vinyl being considered as a 'cool thing', and their faces are priceless, lol. They think it's great, but they'd never do anything like that (or even vaguely approaching it) themselves.
Marco.
Well, I've yet to hear many, which is why I've stopped going to hi-fi shows! There's simply no point, if almost every room you go into, you think the sound of, not just the speakers, but the systems as a whole, is poor or merely mediocre.
The last Bristol show I went to, which caters more for mainstream stuff, highlighted that fact after, trust me, I had listened to a plethora of £1000-£2000 systems/speakers and under - and that wasn't the case back in the 80s and 90s when such shows would produce regular 'wow' moments.
The two examples of 'very expensive speakers' I've highlighted, which didn't do it for me, are only some of many. I've heard plenty more that were very disappointing, considering the huge cost. I'm sure I'm not alone here either in thinking that.
Marco.
My experience is similar but the little shows we have in this country only have a tiny fraction of what is actually available. You could dedicate the rest of your life to listening to high end (£10K plus) speakers and still not cover all the bases.
Nah, it just doesn't fit with their lifestyle. For them, listening to music is something mostly done on the move, or at least with the minimum 'paraphernalia' required possible. I've talked to enough of them about it, as has Del, as she deals with teenagers on a daily basis, when the subject comes up, which it often does.
She's even shown them pictures of my system on AoS, for those who were curious, as a few of them are into Technics T/Ts, with vinyl being considered as a 'cool thing', and their faces are priceless, lol. They think it's great, but they'd never do anything like that (or even vaguely approaching it) themselves.
Marco.
Small powered speakers, connect their phone up to them via Blutooth - job done. How much paraphernalia is that? They already have the phone and acceptable speakers start at about £200. When I was a student it was rare to come across anyone who didn't have some sort of music replay in their digs, even if it was an old music centre or a walkman into powered speakers. And that was back when that stuff was at least twice as expensive as it is now. There's no excuse.
They need to learn how to be proper students while they've still got the chance.:D
I've always said that people are put off from getting involved in hi-fi by the perceived expense and by the idea that the cheap stuff will be no good. Maybe true 20 years ago but now you can buy cheap kit with good performance, new or used.
Do they ever give a reason for why they would not consider it themselves?
My experience is similar but the little shows we have in this country only have a tiny fraction of what is actually available. You could dedicate the rest of your life to listening to high end (£10K plus) speakers and still not cover all the bases.
Yes, but the point is, the "little shows" we have in this country should be ably good enough at demonstrating what extreme high-end audio can do! You shouldn't have to go elsewhere searching for it.
And as I've said, the very same shows, throughout the 80s and 90s, contained all sorts of gems that you could only wonder at and aspire to. That's simply not the case now, so something has changed - and not for the better.
Marco.
Small powered speakers, connect their phone up to them via Blutooth - job done. How much paraphernalia is that? They already have the phone and acceptable speakers start at about £200. When I was a student it was rare to come across anyone who didn't have some sort of music replay in their digs, even if it was an old music centre or a walkman into powered speakers. And that was back when that stuff was at least twice as expensive as it is now. There's no excuse.
They need to learn how to be proper students while they've still got the chance.:D
I've always said that people are put off from getting involved in hi-fi by the perceived expense and by the idea that the cheap stuff will be no good. Maybe true 20 years ago but now you can buy cheap kit with good performance, new or used.
Do they ever give a reason for why they would not consider it themselves?
It's just not their thing, mate, not their mindset. Until you've spent some time with youths, as I have, and got a handle on how they 'tick', in that respect, you won't appreciate where I'm coming from.
In terms of this:
Small powered speakers, connect their phone up to them via Blutooth - job done. How much paraphernalia is that?
Yes, but it's still more than a portable music player and a pair of headphones...;)
The problem is, they've been conditioned to listen to music 'internally', through headphones, not externally, via the use of full-sized speakers, so unlike you and I, find the latter unnatural. For us, it would more likely be the other way round, although personally I enjoy headphone listening.
The other key issue is this: youngsters today simply aren't accustomed to sitting down in front of a hi-fi system, of any description, and listening to music, or indeed concentrating on *any* one thing for more than a few minutes. Therefore, their music listening is done whilst participating on social media, chatting to their friends or whatever, and played through their earbuds, but it's rarely their sole focus.
Watch any teenager today, and how they interact with their phones, and if they have earbuds, or the likes of BEATS headphones on, while listening to music, they'll also be typing away at the same time, chatting to their friends or whatever. Very rarely will they just sit there and do nothing else but listen to music - even when they're walking down the street!:doh:
That's why, unlike you and I, the idea of setting up some sort of hi-fi system at home, whatever form it would take, and using it to sit and listen to music for hours on end, is completely alien to them.
Yes, if there was a screen involved, and it was part of an overall INTERACTIVE [key word] home-entertainment system, where they could also watch movies or use apps to go online and access YouTube, Netflix, their social media accounts etc, which is what Smart TVs are all about, but not a dedicated music-only system that they can't interact with in the same way.
The ones who would be into doing that would be few and far between. It's just how it is.
Marco.
Such as?:)
I don't disagree with your first statement, but what about all the speakers most folk can afford? Some of those 'large advances in materials technology' should be trickling down to make them good too, instead of merely mediocre, or worse.
Marco.
[Wharfedale Evo 4.4's have entered the chat]
https://i.imgur.com/yTLvlIh.jpeg
'Trickle down technology' from Wharfedale's flagship Elysian 4.4, a £6.5k speaker, designed by Peter Comeau.
https://i.imgur.com/1Paf0xj.jpg
Google him, speaker designer of some note...He did the Heybrook HB2 back in the day.
What technology?
What Hifi's review of the Evo 4.4s covers the bases, I agree with all they are saying here.
Describes these speakers well.
https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/wharfedale-evo-44
I had my heart set on a pair of Sonus Faber Sonetto 5 floorstanders, nearly £4.5 K, and saved up to get them.
At that time,
Wharfedale's Elysian/Evo series was launched and I kept reading how they had massive performance for their given price points.
I read about the AMT tweeter, the design philosophy behind them, interviews with Peter Comeau as well as YouTube demos of the Evo 4.4s.
Over time I got really curious about these new speakers, curious enough to put a pause on the Sonus Fabers.
Could save a bit of money here?
Local Hifi Dealer stocks Sonus Faber, and as a long standing customer they were happy to get a set of the Sonetto 5's in for demo, no problem to sell them afterwards they said.
Bought a pair of Evo 4.4s from Richer Sounds (free 6 year guarantee!!) but could return them no problem if I wished.
Great Service from Richers Glasgow, highly recommended.
Did the comparative demo,
had the funds for the Sonus Fabers, but came away thinking the speakers were 'different' not 1 better than the other.
Big shock actually,
And happy I took the trouble to hear my 'Unicorn' speaker against something more real world, but with a strong Designer and design philosophy behind them, and Trickle Down technology from a speaker EVEN MORE advanced/expensive than the Sonus Faber.
I preferred what the Evo 4.4s did over the Sonus'.
The SF were slightly more refined, a.silkier sound, but to the point of being 'mannered' and putting a sheen over the music.
Soundstage noticeably more shut in compared to the Evo too,with its AMT tweeters.
Wharfedale sounded more neutral, more relaxed, yet at the same time with more get up n go.
But most importantly,
They did a better job of getting out the way and presenting the music, AS IS, without smoothing things over, giving a 'posher' more refined (READ: less engaging) listen.
The Wharfedales just put you in the room, there's a level of realism in timbre and the soundstage they throw up that can be spooky at times.
Yes,
I like these speakers, and no, I don't regret these over my 'Unicorn' Sonus Fabers.
THESE are endgame speakers,
I've hooked them up with good quality Amps many times their cost, and the speakers are letting me hear what my kit can really do.
SO:
A modern speaker, with modern materials, trickled down from far more expensive models, at an affordable price.
https://c.tenor.com/pjFju0UpPfsAAAAC/obama-micdrop.gif
:)
future classics in my book.
Background on Peter Comeau and his Elysian/Evo series:
https://theaudiophileman.com/elysian-speakers-news-wharfedale/
And interview with the man himself, speaker tech, and speaker for music vs Measuring Tool.
https://www.hifianswers.com/2020/10/138077/
1 more:
https://youtu.be/BEtDsFIEwgc
Lol - I was waiting for you to do that, and it took longer than expected!!:D;)
Of course there are always exceptions, which is why I said many, not all, modern speakers don't do it for me (and I was thinking of your speakers as an exception). I've not heard the Wharfedales, but don't doubt they're good, as I trust your ears:)
In any case, they certainly give you a lot for your dosh, even just taking into consideration the materials used. I'd like to see much more similar examples in today's market.
Awesome system pic at the beginning, btw.
Marco.
I meant your TV in comparison with a 4K OLED, not a 4K OLED in comparison with an 8K one. I'm presuming that your current LG isn't an OLED...
Trust me, if not, the difference with the former will be similarly big!
Marco.
Yes, both my Sony and LG TVs are 4K LCD types. I can well believe an OLED display would be better.
But I'm still staggered by the resolution of the 8K model I saw. If one could buy 8K DVDs (I assume they would be BluRay) along with a suitable player I might be very tempted.
Oh don't worry, it'll come! I think the OLED factor though was the catalyst for the game changing.
Thing is, you don't have to watch 8K material just yet. 4K material, especially on disc, will still look stunning on an 8K TV, and then simply wait for 8K to catch on and the relevant software to become more available:)
How many 4K Blu-rays, though, do you currently own, to play on your 4K LED TVs? And do you have a 4K Blu-ray player? Apologies, but I've never noticed you discussing either.
Marco.
Air Motion Transformer speaker drive units, developed by Dr Oskar Heil.
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/ess_amt_e.html
The sound quality can be quite remarkable.
Lol, thanks for that. I wish some folks wouldn't just bandy these words about and expect everyone to know what they mean!;)
Marco.
For Marco
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=air+motion+transformer
Lol, thanks for that. I wish some folks wouldn't just bandy these words about and expect everyone to know what they mean!;)
Marco.
In any case though, only "Heils" was mentioned, nothing about an air motion transformer. I'm not a student of the history of audio. I simply play music through a hi-fi system, so had never heard of the dude!
I think the now abundance of available Heils is a good example, now that the 25 years have gone, and many are very good; I am a great fan, even of the original.
Does that sentence make any sense, if you don't know what or who "Heils" is?
Try simply tying 'Heils' into Google (which btw I did), and the results are rather different! https://www.google.com/search?q=Heils&rlz=1C1RFPM_enGB708GB709&oq=Heils&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0i512l2j0i10i512j0i512l4j46i512 j0i512.2578j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
;)
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
01-10-2021, 16:03
Also I don't know why everyone keeps going on about young people not having the space for a proper hi-fi. You can easily fit a proper system into a box room. I did for years.
After all these decades you still haven't twigged that your arthritic knees are a result of your constantly crashing into your giant Solavox speakers when dancing around your bedroom with your hairbrush microphone. Todays kids are a bit more savvy and keep their floor speaker-free. More space for discarded underpants and stiff socks :)
After all these decades you still haven't twigged that your arthritic knees are a result of your constantly crashing into your giant Solavox speakers when dancing around your bedroom with your hairbrush microphone. Todays kids are a bit more savvy and keep their floor speaker-free. More space for discarded underpants and stiff socks :)
I was too poor to afford underpants. No student loans in those days. You had to live off the land.
Speakers were Studio Power not Solavox but not a bad guess.
In any case though, only "Heils" was mentioned, nothing about an air motion transformer. I'm not a student of the history of audio. I simply play music through a hi-fi system, so had never heard of the dude!
Does that sentence make any sense, if you don't know what or who "Heils" is?
Try simply tying 'Heils' into Google (which btw I did), and the results are rather different! https://www.google.com/search?q=Heils&rlz=1C1RFPM_enGB708GB709&oq=Heils&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0i512l2j0i10i512j0i512l4j46i512 j0i512.2578j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
;)
Marco.
I apologise, it is not possible to intuit the extent of others' knowledge. Oskar Heil worked with Von Schweikert and Nelson Pass at ESS in the early 70s developing the original AMT, which was really original thinking, derived form Heil's study of insects.
If you Google ESS speakers you can see the "Great Heil" on their flagship.
No problem, Dennis. I was only a young boy in the early 70s, so wouldn't have known about any of that, although I have heard of Von Schweikert, and certainly Nelson Pass, probably because they're been discussed more on forums or other places I may have looked.
Heils is a new one on me, so thanks for that, and I'll certainly look up his stuff:)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.